The Instigator
GeorgiaAshley
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
htennis
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
htennis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 18,928 times Debate No: 27679
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

GeorgiaAshley

Pro

I await my opponents first argument.
Let the games begin...
htennis

Con

Thank you for providing this debate, and for any voters, thank you for voting.

I am arguing against Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool- therefore, defending public pools.

Keep in mind that this debate consists of swimming only, not about the general setting of the area.

Argument 1) I win by default, as you cannot swim in the ocean. Waves prevent one from swimming in the ocean. A family would only go to a beach to have fun in the water, not to swim in the water, as it is not possible.

Argument 2) While swimming pools are kept clean, there is a lot of trash and pollution in the ocean.
According to CBS, over 300 billion pounds of plastic are floating around in the ocean (1). No one wants to swim in such a place like that. Whereas a swimming pool has chemicals to keep it clean, the ocean is filled with a lot of bacteria that no one enjoys. Only in 2010, there was a massive BP oil spill. Estimates have shown that 102 high school gyms could have been filled from the amount of oil that was potentially spilled (2). Oil has spilled- harming animals, and humans could be harmed too. Again, swimming pools are kept clean.

Argument 3) The ocean is filled with salt water, and no one wants to inhale salt water.

(1) http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...
(2) http://www.thedailygreen.com...

Thank you and I await my opponent's arguments and responses.
Debate Round No. 1
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Thank you for accepting, this is sure to be a good debate.
First of all I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion and the arguments you put out.
Swimming in a ocean is better than swimming in pools.

The first argument you made was rather weak as you can and do swim in the ocean. Regardless of the waves,people still swim, for example,at a beach you swim out deep and ride the swells back to shore. You swim and dive in the waves and body board on the whitewash. Out deeper, (Not at a beach) you jump off your boat, go diving, snorkeling or whatever your leisure activity may be. Fault one.

You argued that pools are cleaner than the ocean, well that is hardly reasonable considering the ocean is always changing and moving and rips and currents take place, washing away any traces of filth.
Where as in a pool you are swimming in other peoples bacteria and even sometime urine, a position most uncomfortable to be in...
You may argue that there are certain chemicals to remove these germs and bacteria but just think, if the chemicals your using are strong enough to kill bacteria then what on earth is happening to your body and skin when you swim in pools.
Yuck!
There is nothing worse than swimming in a public pool among several other people, it is exactly the same as swimming in someone else's dirty, used bath water...

You went on to argue that the ocean is filled with salt water and well no one wants to "inhale" salt water. Well in saying that you are quite correct. No one does want to inhale salt water, almost as much as no one wants to inhale highly chlorinated pool water.
Your digging yourself into a hole my friend...
htennis

Con

I would like to point out why I have already won this debate.

1) I have evidence and you do not. Thus my arguments should have more creditability and therefore be stronger than yours.

2) You do not have any offensive arguments of your own. All you do is respond to mine, so in the worst case scenario, this debate is a tie and in the best case scenario, I win.

Extension Argument 1) Maybe it is true that you can swim at the ocean, but if you wanted to purely swim (as the resolution states) you should prefer a swimming pool. People only go to the beach for leisure activities (as you were so kind to mention) which, unfortunately, should not factor in this debate. If you looking at just swimming, would you rather swim in a fresh-water no-wave place or a salty-water oil-filled waves place?

Extension Argument 2) Argument 2 is my strongest, and you've said some incorrect things. You say the ocean moves to spread out the filth, and thus traces are washed away. The Center for Biological Diversity said that breaking the oil into smaller chunks did not make it less harmful but actually killed MORE animals (1, 1st paragraph). Even a year after the spill, the death toll continued to rise. The chemicals in a swimming pool were WILLINGLY implemented to clean the pool. Therefore, these chemicals should have little to no affect on one's body compared to the oil from the BP oil spill and the plastic trash which were "SPILLED" (meaning they DIDN'T WANT it in the ocean). Again, look at the facts.

Extension Argument 3) You merely say that no one wants to inhale pool water more than salt water, but you have no evidence to back it up. This argument should no longer factor in the debate. Agreed?

In summary, I'm winning in three ways. The first two were mentioned at the beginning of this round and the third is that I'm winning on pure arguments (Arguments 1 and 2).

(1): ANOTHER SOURCE- current evidence count (3-0 in favor of me) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

I am refuting against your arguments, therefore, I am doing what I should be. Thank you for expressing your concern though.

Here are some arguments of my own:

Argument 1) The chemicals in pools are extremly harmful when exposed to skin, if not dissolved properly and even when dissolved properly in some cases. Therefore it is not good for your health where as salt water on the other hand is soothing, good for healing and cleansing. Pools clearly, do not have quite the same medicinal properties...

Argument 2) There is nothing like the feeling of sand between your toes. That is something you can't deny :)

Argument 3) The ocean has endless entertainment when it comes to swimming. Pool are some what limited in this area of focus although you may argue that lilos and pool toys can be quite fun to muck around with, only for a short time though...

Thankyou
htennis

Con

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to respond to my extensions in Round 4. If you don't, that will have proven that I have when those two arguments, and therefore, the debate. You do bring up your own arguments in this round, but you still don't have evidence. Thus I still have already won.

Refutation to Argument 1) I concede the validity of your statement. However, it most be pointed out that while salt water is soothing and as medicine properties, salt water contaminated with oil does not. Also, you do not respond to the comparison between the BP oil still and chlorine, but I am giving you Round 4. Regardless, at this point in the debate oil is much worse than pool chemicals because, as I have already stated, oil was spilled INVOLUNTARILY while chemicals were put in the pool WILLINGLY.

Refutation to Argument 2) Again, I concede the validity of the statement. However, the feeling of sand between one's toes has nothing to do with swimming, either in a pool or in the ocean (unless you can somehow prove that a person can swim while standing on dry sand).

Refutation to Argument 3) Please specify what the endless entertainment is. If it is watching the sunset or something like that, it is non-topical and does not apply to swimming in the ocean.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Just let me inform you that this debate is NOT about oil!
Which clearly you seem to think it is.
Yes we have oil spills in the ocean, but not as often as chlorine and chemicals are poured into pool that people know people will be swimming in!
End of story, forget the oil.

You keep saying that I have not evidence to support my statements., this is untrue, I do have evidence on hand but I feel it is not needed and that all I need to prove my theory is my arguments...

Think about this, if you spend one hour swimming in a chlorinated pool without goggles and you spend the same amount of time swimming in the sea, which are you most likely to be affected by? Quite obviously the pool, the chemicals in pools affect and sometime even alter your eyesight.

Chlorine, which is often used in swimming pools, can erode and weaken teeth; whereas, the ocean"s salt water decreases bacteria in the mouth providing a healthy oral environment, making ocean activities your optimal choice. That is a statement I relieved from a dental website...
So there, chlorine in pools affects a vast variety of things...
htennis

Con

Let me go point for point on what my opponent said.

He says that oil should not be factored in this debate. Well, the oil is in the ocean, and it is a reason why many animals have died. He says that "people know people" will be swimming in chlorine. That is my point. People know that they will be swimming in chlorine, so it has obviously been proven safe. However, the oil was not meant to be spilled into the ocean and has not been proven safe (because it isn't).

He says that he has evidence on hand but decides not to use it because he is using rhetorical power to win...
Ok, but if you don't give anyone sources for your flawed logic and reasoning, there is no reason to believe you. Just saying.

He uses a rhetorical moment to situate this debate. Right, but he has no evidence to show that chemicals affect eyesight while I have evidence in the first couple of rounds stating that animals have DIED from the BP oil spill.

He says that chlorine can weaken teeth. Again, he provides no link and disregards that fact that if chlorine were harmful, it would not be used in pools. He says that the ocean's salt water cleans the mouth. Again, a link would help us validate this argument as we do not know whether the website says salt water or the ocean's salt water. Big difference, as I have aforementioned.

Reasons to Vote for Me:

1) I have backed my arguments with evidence, so you know they are true. My opponent has not.
2) The only thing he has going for him is that chlorine is harmful- but he completely ignores the fact that chlorine would not be used if it is, in fact, as harmful as he says it is.
3) I have clearly shown how oil is harmful to animals and could be hazardous to humans as well. These claims are backed by evidence.
4) He has, several times, disregarded his own resolution and strayed off topic.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DBking 3 years ago
DBking
i guess it depends what part of the ocean and what type of pool but over all put it like this to see what BETTER -- the rest of you life.... ocean or pool. pick one. id go ocean hands down no feet eating dirt allday. wut? im from hawaii.

you want facts? ok mee to. here some just a lil

In his book, Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine, Joseph M. Price, MD presents startling evidence that Trihalomethanes, are the "prime causative agents of arteriosclerosis and its inevitable result, the heart attack or stroke." These Trihalomethanes are created when the chlorine that is added to the municipal water supply reacts with organic matter such as leaves, twigs, or chemicals from agricultural runoff.

Here's What The Experts Have To Say:

"The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer."

Health Freedom News, January/February 1987

"Long-term drinking of chlorinated water appears to increase a person's risk of developing bladder cancer as much as 80%," according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some 45,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with bladder cancer.

St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987
"Although concentrations of these carcinogens are low...it is precisely these low levels which cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States." Report Environmental Defense Fund
reactions between the chlorine and natural substances and pollutants in the water." (organic matter such as leaves and twigs.)
Posted by flyingace 3 years ago
flyingace
Reading this debate has significantly bothered me. Both of you, either before creating a debate, or participating in a debate, I highly advise you BOTH to get your facts straight. Pro, I was utterly surprised when reading your arguments. You had so much to work with, so much evidence, and the upper hand. However, you decided it would be better to use non sequitur arguments (which Con kept pointing out). Con, many of your accusations were incorrect. Pro was indeed correct about pool chemicals being worse. The genotoxicity of chlorinated public pools is utterly appalling. Health effects vary from respiratory diseases to fatal variations of pneumonia, to various types of cancer. It has been scientifically proven that 40 minutes of swimming is enough time for chlorine in public pools to create carcinogenic genetic mutations. Frequent swimmers in public pools have increased risk of almost ALL TYPES OF CANCER. Chlorine in public pools, though you may not realize it, does not instantly kill all germs and bacteria. Some bacteria can stay for months before it is killed. Something Pro should've picked up on is that the oil molecules would disperse amongst the water molecules, evenly dispersing themselves. Now compare this to swimming pools. There is less water, thus less water molecules. The instant the "guck" tries to "disperse" itself, the "guck" molecules will realize that there are more of them than there are water molecules, meaning that there must be less space between them. With that said, there is a higher concentration of guck in public pools than there is in the ocean. As I said above, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU ASSUME YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ON THE SUBJECT. I don't know whether or not it was laziness on both parts, but there was a lack of valid arguments on both sides. Your debate was an utter joke. FlyingAce, out.
Posted by Smidday 4 years ago
Smidday
Right reading this was starting to piss me off the pro guy isn't putting up a good enough argument.

The deaths of animals after an oil spill was simply the ingestion of the oil or becoming so engulfed in it you drown (No sane person would swim in this or even this far out into the sea) and no you won't burn by touching it.

The other argument is that the ocean is much safer compared to swimming pools as the chlorine can burn sensitive skin also saltwater does not cause burning, itching, dry skin, or green hair. In some foreign countries there are no set rules on how much chlorine you can use in a pool, learning this first hand in Spain, whoever did the pool maintenance put too much chlorine in the pool and as a result I was basically blinded for nearly a whole day, great experience on holiday, where as in the ocean never once had this problem the oceans were clear blue with fish swimming around you which was a fantastic experience, which also brings me to my next point if a fish can't live in a swimming pool does that sound like a healthy environment. Just because the chemical may be "safer" or kill germs doesn't mean its good (maybe in slight moderation) e.g. you wouldn't swim in water mixed with bleach or let it get in your mouth
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
I like swimming in the ocean, but I think Con has won this debate, with sources used to back up his points. Oil and trash.

Pro could have made the point that swimming in pools can be somewhat crowded.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Chlorine cleans pool by removing bad toxins. You can swim in the ocean, but with lots of difficulty. I did so myself. The real debate should have been what is safer.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was generally a poor debate, but Con did better. Con was able to refute Pro's argments and built his own strong argments. Con used more reliable sources than Pro.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct because he stated sources. arguments because con refuted all pros argument but he couldve presented better arguments. Con used more reliable sources because he actually used sources. Pro assumed her argument was better than any source.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As a beach goping enthusiast and a 4 year member of my high school swim team, i was looking forward to reading the arguments presented by both sided......... I was thoroughly disappointed. Con's first argument that you cant swim in the ocean was just as bad as pro's second argument claiming that the ocean keeps itself clean. The third argument was an opinion of both sides over which is worse, the smell of salt water or chlorine water, which didnt do much for either side. Con could have easily brought up how people can be swept out to sea, how people die from rip currents, shark attacks, or point out that public pools are the scene for more abductions then the oceans, and he would have won the argument easily. He didnt though, and pro's argument that polls are limited by their area whereas the sea is endless was enough to win the debate in my opinion..... Arguments to the pro, sources to no one sicne neither used them, spelling and grammar were average..... I give this 1 out of 4 stars
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Clearly it's possible to swim in the ocean,And con stated you can't. I agree with Pro, Swimming in an ocean would be must more realistic than swimming in a man made swimming pool. Note Pro should cite verifiable sources for his argument.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
GeorgiaAshleyhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO said "I do have evidence on hand but I feel it is not needed and that all I need to prove my theory is my arguments..." Therefore, I dinged him for not using reliable sources and gave 2 points to CON. However, CON completely and utterly messed up the definition of "swimming", a fundamental term for this debate. He made an outlandish assertion as to the definition of swimming, one that simply does not corroborate with available sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swim. Therefore I dinged him on conduct and gave one point to PRO. CON's arguments were overall well researched. That PRO thought that citations were not necessary is a huge negative and deeply undermines the credibility of his arguments. From what I can tell PRO also ceded burden of proof to CON - CON dictated terms as to not including anything other than swimming, which PRO violated on multiple occasions. Messy debate - my vote goes to CON.