The Instigator
NSG
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
RMK
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points

Tanning is bad for you

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,276 times Debate No: 1166
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (19)

 

NSG

Con

I am against tanning. Many studies show that tanning is bad for you. It causes premature aging and skin cancer.

The sun's UV rays damage the DNA of the skin's epidermal cells, triggering enzymes that race to repair the damage. However, these enzymes do not always repair the DNA successfully, and all this unrepaired damage can lead to mutations that increase the risk of skin cancer. Also, repeated unprotected sun exposure can cause photoaging – wrinkles, sagging skin, and spots associated with sun damage.
RMK

Pro

I have to disagree with this debate topic.

Tanning is not ALWAYS bad for you. In fact, tanning in moderation and using the proper skin care products can be beneficial to your skin and body.

The sun (and tanning bed lights) give of a Vitamin D which promotes strong and healthy bones. Vitamin D can also promote healthier vision (although, you should always wear protective eye glasses). Also, tanning in moderation can provide your skin with the correct balance of oils that is essential for healthy, breathable skin and can prevent (and in some cases cure) acne, dry skin, exczema, and numerous other skin conditions.

Tanning has also lead to increased self-esteem and confidence. So not only is tanning good for you physically, but it can also be good for you mentally.

Tanning, in moderation and with the right care, is not bad for you and should be done for increased health benefits.
Debate Round No. 1
NSG

Con

Hello,

Both sun tanning and tanning bed are bad for you. Skin cancer is not one of them. Here are just a few of the side effects associated with sun tanning:

1.Frequent tanning can cause premature aging of the skin. A 20 year old with excessively sun-damaged skin can look 30 or older.
2.Tanning can cause the skin to change. Common changes in the skin include freckles and sunspots.
3.Tanning results in more superficial and deep wrinkles.
4.Excessive tanning may contribute to skin cancer. In fact, more than 90 percent of all skin cancers result from too much exposure to UV radiation in the sun.
5.Tanning excessively over prolonged periods of time can decrease your immune system's ability to combat diseases.

You said that tanning has also lead to increased self-esteem and confidence. To be able to look tanned, it requires long period of tanning, it will definitely increase the chance of getting skin cancer. Looking tanned doesn't necessarily means looking good, you are only in the US, probably never been to other countries in Asia. Over there, tanning skin is considered bad looking. You also can't speak for all Americans, paled people get dates, get married, win pageants.

What is your definition on "tanning in moderation"? The period and amount of tanning before you actually diagnosed with a skin cancer? I would like to see your way proving of the actual quantity/quality of moderation tanning.

Thank you.
RMK

Pro

The humble Vitamin D is a lot more versatile than first thought. Most of this nutrient is absorbed from the sun. "A D-related hormone in the skin soaks up the ultraviolet rays in sunlight and travels to the liver and the kidneys, where it picks up extra molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. This process transforms the "pre-vitamin" D into a potent hormone called calcitriol. Part of the evolving understanding of this nutrient is that scientists now think many tissues in the body - not just the liver and kidneys - can convert the pre-vitamin D to make their own disease-fighting calcitriol." (Reader's Digest Research)

Without sunlight, the body would use up its reserve of vitamin D in a matter of a few weeks. For those over 50, 20-60% are low in Vitamin D...thus the increased risk of bone damage in the later years.

"Researchers are also probing links between prostate, breast and ovarian cancers and a lack of sunshine and D. Indeed, scientists at the National Cancer Institute recently surveyed death certificates in 24 states and found the chances of dying from any of those cancers was reduced by 10 to 27 percent for people in the sunniest areas." (Reader's Digest Research)

In Finland, where the sun shows its face for only a few hours a day during the winter, the natives have the world's highest incidence of Type 1 diabetes.

"18 volunteers with mild hypertension and put them under UVB lights for at least six minutes three times a week. After six weeks, the amount of D in their systems had more than doubled and their blood pressure had dropped significantly - to normal for some." (Readers Digest Research)

Obviously, getting a tan is beneficial for the body. The sun is the best resource for Vitamin D, a vitamin that has shown to more important than first thought.

Your argument was tanning is bad for you. You made no reference to the alloted time. However, it would be beneficial for a person to get 10-20 minutes of tan time a day without sunscreen. After that, ample sunscreen should be used and applied regularly every hour for maximum results.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
NSG is right, and she's a babe.
Posted by potterfreak5 9 years ago
potterfreak5
sorry brain fart but how about the Lohan tan many people take that road
Posted by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
ummm...potterfreak did you not read the debate?

that is EXACTLY how the debate is set up :/
Posted by debate777 9 years ago
debate777
Tanning is not only bad for you, it causes skin damage, spots, and many undesirable skin diseases! NOBODY shoulder tan to often, but if they want to tan a little bit, that's fine!!!
Posted by potterfreak5 9 years ago
potterfreak5
if the topic is Tanning is bad 4 u
wouldn't the pro be its bad and the con be its good not the other way around like this debate has shown?
Posted by potterfreak5 9 years ago
potterfreak5
hello how bout' the Lohan (lindsay Lohan) tan
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Actually tanning can be beneficial for some people. There is a disease (I have a family member with it ) called psoriasis . The Only way to make it go away is sunlight treatments. They can be very expensive and not always covered by insurance so some people with it go tanning. It will actually clear up all the spots. It is a painful thing to have as well as humiliating so I think tanning can be a good thing. Also a little tanning can sometimes help with depression as sometimes people suffer depression in the winter and they say sun and actually tanning can help lift that depression. Lastly , tanning can help if you are going somewhere on vacation and the sun is extremely strong because you can actually get a base tan without burning and then it protects you from burning when you are away. So while I agree that tanning can be harmful (especially girls that are permanently orange all year long ) it can in some instances be a good thing.
Posted by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
I am glad you said that.
Thank you!
Posted by dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
NSG, you always bring us a breath of fresh air! Another interesting topic that hasn't yet been debated here.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dorobo 8 years ago
dorobo
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by weeeeeeee 9 years ago
weeeeeeee
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Chickenman 9 years ago
Chickenman
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kame87 9 years ago
kame87
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by debate777 9 years ago
debate777
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
NSGRMKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03