The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Muted
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,200 times Debate No: 26670
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

jh1234l

Pro

I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water.

1. Health benefits

Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."[1]

Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses.

Plus, bottled water isn"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous.

2. Environmental impacts

"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled."[3]

3.It is expensive!

Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3]

4. It does not even taste better than tap.

"D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test."[4]

5. Conclusion

Bottled water :
Less regulated
Costs more than tap
Bigger carbon footprint
Not as good for you as tap
Tastes worse than tap

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.onlineeducation.net...
[4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.
Muted

Con

I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments.

1. Health benefits.
It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine.
The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water.

There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing.

2. Environmental effects.
I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, "Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year." How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare.

Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles.

3. Cost
Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits.

4. Taste
Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.

Conclusion:
Bottled water :
Less regulated. No such point was made.

Costs more than tap. Not necessarily.

Bigger carbon footprint. No such point.

Not as good for you as tap. Refuted.

Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water.

I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error.

Now to the real debate.

"It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine.
The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water.
There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing."

The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.

Plus, check out this: "In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water."[3]

Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated.
Bottled water: Isn"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container.

Environmental effects argument:

"How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare."
It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL.

"Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles."

Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2]

How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it.

Cost Argument

"Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water."

Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store?

"Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits."

Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1]

Taste

"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution."

This still does not prove my taste argument wrong.

"Less regulated. No such point was made."

It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1]

"Costs more than tap. Not necessarily."

No proof given.

"Bigger carbon footprint. No such point."

Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1]

As you can see, I did have such point.

"Not as good for you as tap. Refuted."

It still is not tested for E.coli. [1]

"Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water."

No refutation given at all.

Conclusion

My opponent has not given a single source on this debate.
No evidence given from opponent.
My opponent did not refute point 4.
(No personal attack intended)

[1]http://www.onlineeducation.net...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com...
Muted

Con

"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks."
So now Pro is admitting to something.

"The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water."
Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion).

Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed.

One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle.

My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe.

Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical)

The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar.

It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank.

The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case.

Con concedes the carbon footprint point.

E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks.

Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless.

Conclusion
I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past.
My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro.
Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical.
Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks for a well written response!

"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks."
So now Pro is admitting to something.

I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid.

"One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle."

Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't.

"The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates.
Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, "the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children"."[1]

"E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are."

Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2]

"Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless."

Let's see his refutation:

"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution."

The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all.

[1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...
Muted

Con

Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution.
The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water.

A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a "For drinking only" sign). A tap"s main purpose is to supply water. Period.

I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water.

Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur.

P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water
P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli
Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli

I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water.

Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate!

"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur.
P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water
P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli
Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli"

But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water.)
Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E.coli?

"I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water."

Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water.

With this logic, we can also conclude that:

P1.Unicorns have glitter.
P2.Unicorns produce the glitter.
C. Unicorns are real.

Therefore this rebuttal is false.
Muted

Con

If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water.
There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli.

"Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water."
Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior.

Pro"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro

"Pro's logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed."

This is exactly your logic in the taste argument:

Unicorns have glitter. (Tap water tastes better than bottled water in D.C.)
Unicorns produce glitter. (The taste is from the impurities in the water)
Therefore unicorns are real. (Therefore the taste argument is refuted.)

Your logic is flawed.
Muted

Con

I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion.
1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water.
2. All water has impurities.
3. Pure water ideally is tasteless.
Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste.

Applying this to unicorns.
1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history.
1. Legends have unicorns.
3. Pure history is boring.
Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear.

Thus, unicorns are not proven.

Conclusion:
Conduct: Pro
He is far more courteous than I.
Spelling: Tie
There isn"t much in the way of a difference here.
Arguments: Con
Pro has basically dropped all arguements
Sources: Pro
Con provides almost no sources.

Thanks this has been an interesting debate
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
was originally going to award PRO net 5 points, but will add 2 points to counter Billdekel's sourcing vote bomb.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
This debate was terrible. I will commend CON for taking up an impossible challenge. I will say it is impossible given how poorly CON argued his case (not that I could have done any better).

1) PRO actually sourced, and CON admitted he barely did.
2) Most of CON's arguments were borderline non-sequitors. The word "try-hard" comes to mind here (no offense, I know how hard a case this is to make lol).
3) I got the sense that CON staked his case on PRO making blatant errors in logic. Unfortunately, it simply does not take a lot of logic to realize that tap water will invariably be cheaper than bottled water in most circumstances. I was surprised CON did not bring up disasters like Sandy to make the case that bottled water does have a place in society and is worth the cost. It would have been better than most of the arguments he made lol...
4) Although CON refuted taste, it didn't matter...that 40% of bottled water IS tap water, and you can just turn on the faucet and get tap water essentially for free, is a very hard argument to refute.

I can't believe I'm typing out this much over a debate like this, but I realize CON tried really, really hard to make some sort of case lol...sometimes, you lose just by pressing the "accept" button. This is clearly one of those cases.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
It's alright. I'm pretty noob here myself. (I'll reply because this clears up, and I don't see reason not to) On DDO (as in most debates), the burden of proof is only on the instigator or the one for the resolution (Pro) unless otherwise stated. Thus I had no need to prove my statements, only to poke holes in my opponent's arguments. Because Pro did not state that the BoP was shared, he had to prove himself without me doing anything other than poke holes. This I did, but as I did not feel the debate was in any way challenging, I asked voters to vote in such a way as to make it a draw. This did not happen.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
Muted, I sincerely apologize. My original post "You are convinced you won the argument in this debate..." was supposed to be directed at jh1234l. Not having any hierarchy to these comments isn't helping. When you responded "I do not understand your contentions at all ax123man" I idiotically thought you were jh1234l.

As far as my vote, I'm pretty new to DDO and still trying to figure things out. I think you have a point on my RFD, although it would have helped if your statement was "I didn't agree with ax123man on point XYZ of his RFD".
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
"First you accuse voters of voting based on religious affiliation"???? I am not debating myself. That was something stated by jh1234I, whom you voted for. Not by me, by any means.

I meant that I don't agree with your RFD, which I view as inane. However, I did say I will let it pass. After all, not every voter is going to put a good RFD, which they ideally should, by the way.

I asked voters to vote for my analysis of the debate. To read it, read the end of my portion of the debate. If you disagree with it, you can vote for Pro. I have no objection to you doing that.

That being said, and in the full knowledge that you have alleged things about me which I have never stated, I will cease to reply to you.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
There's nothing incoherent about what I wrote.

First you accuse voters of voting based on religious affiliation. This implies you somehow know definitively what the vote SHOULD have been. You don't. Voters have their own opinions.

Next you say "Don't agree with ax123man" and expect me to read your mind - what you really meant was "I disagree with ax123man's RFD".

Then you write "emospongy voted exactly the way I asked voters to". How else do you expect others to take that other than you apparently know exactly what the vote SHOULD have been.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I do not understand your contentions at all ax123man, please state your ideas in a coherent fashion. Last time I checked, I was not telepathic. I disagree with your votes not because it agrees/disagrees with my own opinion of the debate, but because I view your RFD as inane.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
You are convinced you won the argument in this debate. The way this works is others who read the debate are entitled to their own opinions. It's a subjective decision on the part of those readers. You write as if it's objective, as if you wrote "1+1=2" and all the voters wrote "No, 1+1=3". Either that or you think the way it works is you form your opinion and voters read your mind in order to know what to vote.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
http://debate.org... jh1234I, want to join?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Don't agree with ax123man, but I'll drop it.

jh1234I, Bill voted for me because he views my arguments are better (I don't agree with him totally)

emospongy voted exactly the way I asked voters to
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
jh1234lMutedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because I found Pro's tone at times insulting. There were a couple spelling errors in Pro's arguments. Pro had better facts and sources that lead him to have a stronger argument than Con.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
jh1234lMutedTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
jh1234lMutedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded conduct and sources. I thought Pro's sources were weak, but at least existent. I thought cons arguments were pretty weak however, the key problem with con, and the reason I tied the argument point, is the resolution was that tap water was better. Con only needed to show it's probable that it isn't better.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
jh1234lMutedTied
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: pros arguments were full of holes as pointed out. Con made great arguments that went unrefuted
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 4 years ago
Like_a_Boss
jh1234lMutedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
jh1234lMutedTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Duh.