The Instigator
Gogert777
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dynamicduodebaters
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Urinating and defecating in public should be allowed as long as you clean it up

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 3 votes the winner is...
dynamicduodebaters
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 61056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Gogert777

Pro

First round is acceptance. You may give a small argument like I have done below.

I am for the act of freely 'doing my business" in public.
I believe that it is my right as an american citizen. People have been pooping and peeing on the ground wherever they wish for thousands of years. Now that we are more "modern" it is a crime.
dynamicduodebaters

Con

I would like to keep this round for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
Gogert777

Pro

Tell do this!!
Everyone is different in their own way, but.....everyone poops.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

I think that everyone should have the right to poop and pee-pee anywhere they want.
Examples of places to poop could be on the sidewalk, in the street, very close to someone, in a bottle you found in the gutter, in the gutter, down someone's chimney, on a parked car hood, a homeless man's face.
If you really wanted to be creative and have a blast, take a carbet and cover the whole area of the carpet with feces and roll it up, and take it onto a subway train, and then unroll it.

Fast food chain restaurants or any other privately owned business owner would have to put up a sign that says no pooping or peeing here! Even if you tell then you will clean it up, they will most likely don't want you doing you business in their establishment.
Home Depot has those toilets on display you know.

Not everyone would poop or pee in public, only a handful of people would want to do that anyway.
If i do not clean up my poop, i would be arrested. Just like in a dog park if i did not clean the poop.
Some people will try to throw there poop on others, and that should be against the new law.

So lets say that pooping and peeing in public is legal, now there are some people in the streets pooping, others on top of building taking aim at people below, and on interstate bridges taking aim at cars.
Man walks into street, pulls his paints down and leaves a huge pile of poop in the street and takes off running.
The police would have to take samples of the poop to find out who done it.
Then after they id'ed him, they go arrest him. I could see this as a tv show. Poopers gone rogue, premieres saturday at 10.

Man pees on plant outside in say new york city. He whips his dong out and is fully erect. A family walk by him. In that family there is a mother and a father, and a small 8 year old girl. She sees the man's large penis. The man sees that little girls reaction and turns to gives her a better look, then the father decks him in the face. The mother cries and holds the child. This is why it should be legal. Flashing is completely different.

Lets see what you have to say.
dynamicduodebaters

Con

INTRODUCTION


Wow. Impulse acceptance. This should be fun. Warning: most of my points will be about the spread of disease from fluid discharge, but only urine and feces. I also did not expect you to troll this debate, because I will be taking this seriously. Also, I will be saving all my rebuttals and refutations for the last round, or R4. I hope you do the same but often trolls don’t cross reference.


(ARGUMENTS)


a) Ebola spreading around. Before I begin, I would like to explain what ebola is:


“Ebola virus disease (EVD), formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans.

EVD outbreaks have a case fatality rate of up to 90%.

The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission.

Severely ill patients require intensive supportive care. No licensed specific treatment or vaccine is available for use in people or animals” {1}


“As I speak, EVD is now considered an international public health emergency according to world Health Organisation (WHO). Ebola is a very terrifying disease, a killer” {2}


1552 people have died from this terrifying lethal disease. But what does urinating and defecating in public do to spread this? Well “You can catch it through direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person.” {3}


These fluids would include urine and feces.


So, imagine you are walking, one day, and someone defecated on the path but you didn’t notice it. You accidentally stepped in it. That person who defecated has (or had) Ebola. Now you have a 90% chance of dying. But, if people were not allowed to urinate or defecate in public, the number of people doing their business would simply drop, parallel to the amount of people getting ebola and other diseases would simply fall of a downward cliff. And even if they pick it up, there is still germs all over the spot where they went. Exposure period is very deadly period.


b) Giardiasis. What is it? “Giardiasis is an illness caused by the parasite, Giardia intestinalis. According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), giardiasis is the most common intestinal parasite in the United States. When a person becomes infected, some will show signs and symptoms, while others will not.” {4}


“Giardiasis can also lead to dehydration because of the loss of fluids and electrolytes lost in diarrhea and vomiting. In some cases symptoms will go away, only to return a few day or weeks later. In most cases, symptoms last one to two weeks.” {4} But how can it spread? Imagine you are a poor man in a poor country. You bite your nails. Someone before you had Giardiasis, did their business, wiped, but did not wash their hands. That person touched, let’s say, a door handle. You then touch that door handle, and then bite your nails. Ba-bam, you have Giardiasis. Now, this could happen anywhere, but to relate back to the resolution, “One billion people still defecate in public” {5} The chance of people washing their hands inside washing rooms before spreading the disease is much better than if people just defecated anywhere they wanted too. It’s not like there are random sinks in the middle of a local park in the forest.


c)


“Waste that end up in water bodies negatively change the chemical composition of the water. Technically, this is called water pollution. This will affect all ecosystems existing in the water. It can also cause harm to animals that drink from such polluted water.” {6}


Whenever you eat food, that food is either “basic” or “acidic.” So let’s say you eat a lot of acidic food such as: “Corn Lentils

Olives Winter Squash” {7} (see reference 7 for a LOT more acidic foods) You then defecate out a mixture of this food you ate that you did not use up within your body. Then imagine you defecated in a river. even though the resolution states you pick it up, it has already affected the rivers basicness and acidity. So now you have a crap-load (pun intended) of acid in the water from you and other people who had acidic foods defecating in the river. This example can also be switched to basic foods, or Alkaline food. But what can acid do to water life?


“Most freshwater lakes, streams, and ponds have a natural pH in the range of 6 to 8. Acid deposition has many harmful ecological effects when the pH of most aquatic systems falls below 6 and especially below 5.

Here are some effects of increased acidity on aquatic systems:

- As the pH approaches 5, non-desirable species of plankton and mosses may begin to invade, and populations of fish such as smallmouth bass disappear.

- Below a pH of 5, fish populations begin to disappear, the bottom is covered with undecayed material, and mosses may dominate nearshore areas.

- Below a pH of 4.5, the water is essentially devoid of fish.

- Aluminium ions (Al3+) attached to minerals in nearby soil can be released into lakes, where they can kill many kinds of fish by stimulating excessive mucus formation. This asphyxiates the fish by clogging their gills. It can also cause chronic stress that may not kill individual fish, but leads to lower body weight and smaller size and makes fish less able to compete for food and habitat.

- The most serious chronic effect of increased acidity in surface waters appears to be interference with the fish’ reproductive cycle. Calcium levels in the female fish may be lowered to the point where she cannot produce eggs or the eggs fail to pass from the ovaries or if fertilized, the eggs and/or larvae develop abnormally (EPA, 1980).

See also metals in freshwater.


Extreme pH can kill adult fish and invertebrate life directly and can also damage developing juvenile fish. It will strip a fish of its slime coat and high pH level ‘chaps’ the skin of fish because of its alkalinity.

When the pH of freshwater becomes highly alkaline (e.g. 9.6), the effects on fish may include: death, damage to outer surfaces like gills, eyes, and skin and an inability to dispose of metabolic wastes. High pH may also increase the toxicity of other substances. For example, the toxicity of ammonia is ten times more severe at a pH of 8 than it is at pH 7. It is directly toxic to aquatic life when it appears in alkaline conditions. Low concentrations of ammonia are generally permitted for discharge.” {8}

Nasty, huh? By merely defecating in public, you are already killing or unnecessarily growing animals and plants. But, if “doing your business” in public is illegal, then it would serve as a deterrence and thus decrease people “doing their business” in a public body of water.


CONCLUSION


Alright, I have proven my point.


DDD


References.


{1} http://www.who.int...


{2} http://leadership.ng...


{3} http://www.bbc.co.uk...


{4} http://www.decodedscience.com...


{5}

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...


{6} http://www.eschooltoday.com...


{7}

http://www.rense.com...


{8}http://www.lenntech.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Gogert777

Pro

You should go to may profile and cheek out my other debates. I think everyone should.

First off, If you step on a spot on a concrete path with a shoe, death is not going to be 90% If you don't have a foot, that person might be homeless, they do not give to society and no one will care if they are gone.
If they are not homeless, then there would be a law that says you need to wear shoes around pooping areas.
Like smoking areas in parks, there can be pooping areas (with little blue baggies). Where shoe in public is a good idea anyway. Someone could be walking on a gravel road and pick up a worm that digs into their foot.
I could source that type of worm that does that but naww
Anything could happen to your feets when you walk barefoot. This Ebola could lower the population significantly.
We have been saving the weak and fat from mother nature for years. Letting nature kill us off to control our stupidly overgrown population is not something that we do not allow. We have about 7 billion people on earth as of 2013. We need less humans on this planet. I recommend watching the movie Rampage.

I noticed that you said very little about urinating. People have always pee-pee'ed outside for generations and it has not affected anything. People will still use toilets like they do today. Most people have septic tanks or septic systems in the US. What is the difference of feces hitting the ground and feces draining from a septic system?

In conclusion, its ok if people die.
:P Mmmwa!
dynamicduodebaters

Con

https://docs.google.com...
You can view our full argument on the link above.
Debate Round No. 3
Gogert777

Pro

Ok, and when I need to clean up my fathers pile of dead babies, I use a pitchfork.
I do not think congress wants to use your work.

I guess its rebuttal time. I don't know what rebuttals are, but I will still try to make them.

Rebuttals-
It is ok for people to die from diseases caused by the dropping left by people in public. Thin out the herd I say.
The only way to keep out poop out of the environment is to destroy it, bury it, shoot it into space, or tell it to leave.
For the wildlife that die off, that will not affect us that much. We will have more than enough plants to go around to make soylet.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(drink)#Taste
I read the article, checks out. I check out too.
The freedom we will get will be worth all of the damage. A lot of jobs could be made for disinfecting areas. Imagine the riots!
dynamicduodebaters

Con

(Introduction)


Aha, my favorite part of debating. The rebuttal! Let’s start:


(Rebuttals)


“Examples of places to poop could be on the sidewalk, in the street, very close to someone, in a bottle you found in the gutter, in the gutter, down someone's chimney, on a parked car hood, a homeless man's face.”


“very close to someone”- This makes the chance of someone catching a disease a lot higher. Also, seriously, who wants someone doing their business right beside you?


“in the gutter”- You know people have to clean the gutters right? So even if you pick it up, people are still going to touch your urine or feces. If you are infected with ANY diseases we mentioned, you just passed on a disease to another person.


“on a parked car hood”- I guess you don’t realize that a car is a private property. So if we went by the resolution, that would not be allowed. A car hood is not public property!


“a homeless man’s face”- Again, no person is anyone’s property then themselves’. So again you could not do your business on anyones face because that is not a public area. Also, just ew. What do you have against homeless people?


“Home Depot has those toilets on display you know”


I presume that you imply going to the washroom in these toilets? Well, good luck bud, there ain’t no plumbing. Also, some of those toilets don’t come with seats. Or maybe it is just a seat.


“Not everyone would poop or pee in public, only a handful of people would want to do that anyway.”


Okay, I will split this into two parts.


a) Still, there would be more people than there are now. especially in first world countries, where almost no one does their business where it is illegal. More people would be doing it if it was legal.


b) Why would only a “handful” be doing this? It is too tempting! No need to pay for bathrooms and toilets! But the thing that people don’t know that it is deadly to do this.


“Man pees on plant outside in say new york city. He whips his dong out and is fully erect. A family walk by him. In that family there is a mother and a father, and a small 8 year old girl. She sees the man's large penis. The man sees that little girls reaction and turns to gives her a better look, then the father decks him in the face. The mother cries and holds the child. This is why it should be legal.”


Wait, you are pro right? You just said that, through this quote, it is too revealing, promotes violence because of this, and is saying it is basically live stripper club. Then you say this is why it should be legal? Pardon me, but holy crap that is a reason against doing your business in public, not for it!





“If you step on a spot on a concrete path with a shoe, death is not going to be 90% If you don't have a foot”


What? I think I get what you are trying to say, but it makes no sense.


“that person might be homeless, they do not give to society and no one will care if they are gone.”


How do you know that no one will care that they are gone? Do remember that sometimes entire families may be homeless and if one family member dies then I am sure that his/her family members would care a lot? Or is it that their opinions do not matter because they are homeless? Even so, If I had a family member that was homeless and had just died, I would care a great deal!


“If they are not homeless, then there would be a law that says you need to wear shoes around pooping areas.”


Really? If public defecating and urinating was allowed would that make you the lawmaker in the country? This point does not help your argument.


“Like smoking areas in parks, there can be pooping areas (with little blue baggies). Where shoe in public is a good idea anyway.”


If defecating and urinating in public was allowed, then there would be no need for special areas, now would there? Also, some people may not realize that there are special zones for defecating and they may end up walking in a persons fecal matter! Now, a lot of people don’t pick up dog feces, why would that make human feces any different?


“Someone could be walking on a gravel road and pick up a worm that digs into their foot.

I could source that type of worm that does that but naww”


What does that have to do with this debate? The debate is Urinating and defecating in public should be allowed as long as you clean it up”


This part of your argument has nothing to do with the debate


“Anything could happen to your feets when you walk barefoot. This Ebola could lower the population significantly. We have been saving the weak and fat from mother nature for years. Letting nature kill us off to control our stupidly overgrown population is not something that we do not allow. We have about 7 billion people on earth as of 2013. We need less humans on this planet.”


A) anything happening to your feet just supports our previous argument, even wearing shoes may not be enough to protect your feet.

B) EXACTLY! Defecating in public can spread Ebola.

C) You want to allow a whole bunch of INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE??? Allowing that is basically genocide! While yes, this planet is getting more and more crowded, I am sure that there are more peaceful ways to control overpopulation. But the fact that you find it okay that innocent people should die, is repulsing! I don’t care if you are trolling or not, but the death of innocent people IS NOT OKAY.


“I recommend watching the movie Rampage.”


What does that have to do with this debate? You have said so much useless garbage throughout this debate, why is that?


“People have always pee-pee'ed outside for generations and it has not affected anything.”


Please refer that to my previous argument.


https://docs.google.com...


“Ok, and when I need to clean up my fathers pile of dead babies, I use a pitchfork. I do not think congress wants to use your work.”


How is this related to our topic at all? What the heck?


“guess its rebuttal time. I don't know what rebuttals are, but I will still try to make them”


I guess it is too late, but rebuttals are what I am doing right now.


“It is ok for people to die from diseases caused by the dropping left by people in public. Thin out the herd I say.”


Ok, I am going to copy and paste what I said previously:


You want to allow a whole bunch of INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE??? Allowing that is basically genocide! While yes, this planet is getting more and more crowded, I am sure that there are more peaceful ways to control overpopulation. But the fact that you find it okay that innocent people should die, is repulsing! I don’t care if you are trolling or not, but the death of innocent people IS NOT OKAY.

“The only way to keep out poop out of the environment is to destroy it, bury it, shoot it into space, or tell it to leave.”

Again, some random crap (excuse the pun) that makes next-to-no sense in this debate.


“For the wildlife that die off, that will not affect us that much. We will have more than enough plants to go around to make soylet.”


Are you kidding me! As humans, we eat lot’s and lot’s and lot’s of wildlife. It is what keeps us going. We can’t just start killing them, because we need them as food for our growing population!


“The freedom we will get will be worth all of the damage. A lot of jobs could be made for disinfecting areas. Imagine the riots!”


Again, that goes against your whole side. You WANT RIOTS?????? Jeez! You cold-blooded troll.


(Conclusion)


Thank you for this debate, despite how trolling vs serious it was. And VOTE CON!



WHY WE HAVE WON!

-We had better arguments

-We refuted all your points.

-You troll while we actually made sufficient and realistic points

-We credited in total 14 sources while you credited 2. Those 2 where both trolly-ish things

-We had better spelling and grammar.


DDD
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
This was wise counsel, my thanks to you:) though, I think public lavatories would be more efficient to clean up the mess! The amount of time one would spend scrubbing ...
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
click.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
To click, or not to click, on that first wikipedia link! :( Decisions, decisions.
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
I feel like this will be evenly matched so much.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
Gogert777dynamicduodebatersTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used betters or ex, better arguments, and was extremely more convincing.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Gogert777dynamicduodebatersTied
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: pro tried, but he didn't troll hard enough. Be more troll-ish and pro might have won this one.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Gogert777dynamicduodebatersTied
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: Pro trolled, while Con actually presented a coherent case relating to the motion. Had Pro been sufficiently funnier, he might have pulled it off. But as it stands, Con made the better arguments. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.