The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Water is a toxic/addictive substance

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 74721
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




Many people will disagree with me on this but i believe that water is a very addictive/toxic substance. I am willing to argue against anyone who would like to be the con in this argument.


Thank you Pro for instigating this debate.

Pro will have the BOP to show that water is addictive and toxic. He must show me and the voters legible facts to back up his claim.

Since Pro didn't define any definitions, I shall do so myself.

Addictive: of a substance, thing, or activity) causing or likely to cause someone to become addicted to it.

Toxic: poisonous.


I await your argument!
Debate Round No. 1


Before i begin my argument i would like to thank the con for accepting this challenge.
I am very aware of the fact that anyone who has began to read this has already dismissed any possibility that what water is toxic/addictive but that is the very reason why i have decided to open up this debate. For my opening argument i will start by saying a few facts which i believe will not need sources(since most people have learned these things in elementary.
Fact 1: Water can be found in the air as water vapor
Fact 2:The average person can only survive 3 days without water.
This last fact may seem stupid or invalid but when you think it through it is absolutely true.
Fact 3: Everyone who has come in contact with water has died.
yes i know that fact 3 seems quite irrational because"We need water to survive"and "everyone dies eventually" But i would like to prove that this has not always been the case. The human race along with many other organisms have become dependent on water over time rather than always needing it, and the long term effect of constantly consuming water has resulted in the death of organisms .Once again this is a fairly bizarre but please bare with me and hear my explanation. Now to continue i would like to ask you a question. Have you ever noticed all of the different things that your body does to get a hold of water. This list includes constantly breathing to take in oxygen which is one of the main chemicals in water, storing so much water in our body that it makes up 60% of our body content(i would suppose that our body uses this as a reserve), and our body makes us nauseous , dizzy and will often times make us pass out if we do not satisfy it with water.( this sounds like what happens when people begin to have withdrawals of a drug. Coincidence, i think not.)
Round 2 conclusion: I know that i have thrown out a lot of information and i have yet to explain how water is toxic/addictive. Now i will take the time to explain it. To do this i will first have to explain what an addiction is. Addiction- a chronic brain disease that causes compulsive substance use despite harmful consequences. Water is a perfect match for this definition because our body is constantly forcing us to intake water although it is harmful. Water is harmful because it runs through our entire body our entire life and while doing so it is weakening everything it comes in contact with. some people consider this to be an effect of aging when in reality it is an effect water. So to sum things up our bodies have become addicted to water, This is the reason for people die.(not including pain stimulated deaths)
If the con wishes to counter she can or she wishes bring her own arguments as to why water is not toxic/addictive she may do so as well.



Rebuttal #1 Water can be found in the air as water vapor

Most water dosent come from vapor in the air, it comes from streams and then is purified.

[1] "Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor in the air is small in extremely arid areas and in location where the temperatures are very low (i.e. polar regions, very cold weather). The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air.

Rebuttal#2 The average person can only survive 3 days without water.

First off, how dose this support your fact that it is addictive or toxic? It dosent fit in either category.

Rebutal#3 Everyone who has come in contact with water has died.

First, you say we NEED water to survive, now if we come near it we die? This makes NO sense what so ever.

Argument #1

You need water to survive, but this dosent make it addicting. Some people can go more than 3 days without water ad be fine.

So here are important reasons as to why we need water!

  • Get Healthy Skin

  • Flush Toxins

  • Reduce Your Risk Of Heart Attack

  • Cushion And Lube Your Joints And Muscles

  • Get Energized And Be Alert

  • Stay Regular

  • Reduce Your Risk Of Disease And Infection

  • Regulate Your Body Temperature

  • Burn More Fat And Build More Muscle

  • Get Well


Debate Round No. 2


In the last argument the con brought up valid points and pointed towards gaps in my argument which i plan on filling.

Con rebuttal #1: First i would like to state that the Con used a very unreliable source( yahoo answers). Anyone that knows anything of this site would know that anyone with a yahoo account can post answers on it. Meaning that if someone asked what the answer to 1 1 is i could reply with 5.(i would like to add the that majority of this rebuttal was copied/pasted from the website just mentioned.I would also like to point out that the person in which the con got her information stated they got this information from the top of their heads(this can be found in the bottom of the of the sources answer in the source(s) section). Even with her inadequate sources i can still go to understand that the purpose of this rebuttal was to get the point across that the majority of water that we intake does not come from air vapor because only 2% of the atmosphere is air vapor. This although it, may or may not be true,(we wouldn't know because of the weak source) means that there is at least 2% of water vapor in the air we breath and although i don't have a degree involving math i believe that after constantly breathing 2% of water vapor from the air it will eventually add up to a much larger number/percentage.

Con rebuttal 2:The con stated that my fact" The average person can only survive 3 days without water." was irrelevant to this discussion or rather unexplained. well now i will be taking the time to explain by using alcohol an example. A statement on ( ) says that "after long term use, withdrawal from alcohol can kill.". Water is the same way and since we have all been consuming water even before we were born(through your umbilical cord) we would be considered long term users which means that we can die from the withdrawal of water on after three days on average.(i hope this explains it.)

Con rebuttal 3: in this rebuttal the Con implied that i have been contradicting myself by saying that one moment im saying that we need water to survive(which was just explained) and the next moment am saying that it kills us(which i will explain now). To explain how water kills us i will be using an example like the one i used earlier(the one about alcohol). For the example i will be using the grand canyon and discussing how it go so grand. For those of you who don't know, the grand canyon wasn't always a canyon but over time it was eroded by water which formed the great land mass in arizona today. Now i want you to think about this question that i am getting ready to ask. If water can create a 277 mile long and 6,000 feet deep gaping hole in solid rock then what can it do to our internal body that is so fragile. The answer is that it can destroy your internal body causing you to die.

As far as the Cons argument 1 is concerned i have very little to say, but nonetheless i will still say them.I will not be sayig anything about the cons statement"you need water to survive, but this doesn't make it addicting" because i have already expressed my feelings about this in the paragraphs above this. I want the Con to know that i know that people can live longer than 3 days without water that is why i said on average. Lastly i would likely to point out that i have realized that the con also copied/pasted most of this information straight from the website(LIke in her first rebuttal). Just To be clear by no means am i accusing the Con plagiarism because she listed all of her sources but her constant copying can only mean two things. 1)The con did not change up the information because she was feeling a bit lazy at the time she published this(which is understandable because everyone gets lazy sometimes). 2) )The con did not change up the information because she does not know anything about this topic so she just copied and pasted the first thing she saw(including an unreliable source from yahoo answers). if it is 1 then there is no problem but if it is 2 then i would like to go and say that the con has no right to say that water isn't addictive/toxic because she doesn't know. So i await the Con answer. are you 1 or 2?(i doubt that she would admit to being 2 although that is the likely answer) This will be the conclusion of my third round debate.



Please note that Pro drops my argument rebuttal "Rebuttal #1 Water can be found in the air as water vapor" untouched.

First off, my sources are not your business to decide weather not they are "reliable" it is the voter's job.

Also please capitalize your *I. Its are always suppose to be capitalized.

Pro say's ".(i would like to add the that majority of this rebuttal was copied/pasted from the website just mentioned

I cited the source, there is nothing wrong with copy and pasting it. So what's the major malfunction?

Now let's start the rebuttals..


Pro Rebuttal 2:

You cant become addicted to water. Sure, its something you need to survive.

Take this for example, the girl who didn't drink water for more then 3 days, but still survived.


You can't use Alcohol as an example. People become addicted to Alcohol because it makes them feel "good" because they become drunk. You can't get drunk off of water.

Pro Rebuttal 3: Again, you can't use Alcohol as an example like I have explained above ^^

Pro Rebuttal 4: Well what is there to argue now?

This doesn't make sense; We need water to survive, yet it's toxic and addicting ad you can die.

*Note that whatever sources Pro used, he plagiarized because he didn't show us which quotes were from a source and he didn't put them in parentheses, he only put my quotes in parentheses.

Debate Round No. 3


The Con did not add anything new to her argument so this round i will attempt to shorten my arguments/corrections

The con stated that" Pro drops my argument rebuttal 'Rebuttal #1 Water can be found in the air as water vapor' untouched." This is untrue because this just so happens to be the first rebuttal that i went over in my round three argument.(To be honest i have no clue how she missed this because it was specifically titled Con rebuttal #1.)

i would like to point out that the con corrected me on making singular i's lowercase. i will pay this little attention this slandering statement because it has nothing to do with the debate and also the Con has made her fair share of grammar errors as have i.

Next i would like to point out that i stated that i recognized that the con cited her sources but i still would like to say that the con has "TYPED" very few arguments of her own(one of which i will discuss in the next paragraph). this means that none of her arguments are original. I would go to believe that it is because she knows very little of this topic.

After reading the cons section entitled "Pro Rebuttal 2" i have gone to realize that the con does not pay attention to any of my arguments. I have come to this conclusion because in this argument the con attempts to counter one of my arguments for the second time now although in have clarified it two times( three times after this). This was my statement that "The average person can only survive 3 days without water." She has constantly tried proving a fact that i'm am well aware of. On two separate occasions i have stated that the AVERAGE person cannot survive more than 3 days without water. i hope you notice the key word there con, AVERAGE. I am well aware of the fact that some people can and have survived longer than 3 days without water.

The cons argument titled "pro rebuttal 2"(which i referred to in the previous paragraph" is quite laughable. This is because it shows that the con has no knowledge of what the true definition of Addiction is. IN this paragraph she states that "People become addicted to Alcohol because it makes them feel "good" because they become drunk You can't get drunk off of water." I will be paraphrasing here but in this statement the con pretty much stated that water cannot not be an addiction because you can't get drunk from it. THis would mean that people cannot be addicted to gambling, food,shopping,sexual activities etc. because you can't get drunk from these task. All jokes aside the proper definition of an addiction is "a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance." This is why water fits the criteria of being an addiction. We are constantly drinking water, and we are dependent on it.

One of the cons final statements was that "This doesn't make sense; We need water to survive, yet it's toxic and addicting ad you can die." i would explain this AGAIN but i am tired of having to repeat myself because the con refuses to pay attention to my arguments, so if the con wishes to see my answer she can go to my round 3 argument and read the section entitled Con rebuttal 3.

Lastly i would like to point out that the Con accused me of plagiarizing because i did not put the quotes in parenthesis. I would like to point out that you don't put quotes in parenthesis but in quotation marks. I would also like to point out that i did not quote anything that didn't have quotation marks, i paraphrased, which do not require quotation marks. With this i conclude my argument and wish the Con the best of luck.
Side note* in my con rebuttal 1 of round three i used an example that stated that"... if someone asked what the answer to 1 1 is i could reply with 5. In this example i did not mean ll i meant 1+1


I'm sorry to kerp my conclusion short, I'm running low on time due to school.

First off I didn't slander you for your grammar. I was trying to help you out for future reference, bevause you *do* get scored on grammar.

I didn't really have a new argument because I made my point clear. HOW CAN WATER BE TOXIC AND MAKE YOU DIE IF YOU *NEED IT TO SURVIVE*? Dosen't make sense at all.

Again sorry for kerping this short.
Good job pro!
Fun debate!

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
congrats on the win. This was a fun first debate for me.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
You too! :)
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
oh ok thank you and goodluck
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Espera needed to explain *why* your arguments were flawed from the beginning and *how* you failed to prove your point. Also she needed to tell me why she gave me a point for "more convincing argument's*
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
im pretty new to so does someone mind telling me why the vote was removed
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Espera // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything but conduct). Reasons for voting decision: While Pro did put a nice effort, their position was flawed from the beginning and in the end they quite simply failed to prove their point in any manner. They also need to work on flow, grammar, and paragraph creation. So I have to go with Con on most of the points given.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain sources (entirely). Too generic on arguments: this could be said of any debate.
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
Part 2
To wrap up
Arguments: Con
Sources: neither (both had bad or plagiarized sources)
Conduct: Con
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
This will act as my rfd:
Part 1
Round 2:
Pro set forth pretty good arguments that would have proved his point, but the points were irrational as they only proved a correlation and not causation. On the "Everyone who has come in contact with water has died" argument Pro does show that all people will die, but did not prove that it is water that causes them to die. Pro did a good job proving that when you do not have water-> you will suffer from withdrawal symptoms, which helped reinforce the point that water is addictive. Pro also states that water is harmful when saying water is what makes us age, but does not back it up with fact. Con successfully rebuts Pro's statement about water vapor by saying how little water there is truly in the air. Con also shows how some of Pro's arguments don't make sense and are quite contradictory. Con also includes a list of reasons of why water is so helpful, which is a good rebuttal to Pro's "water is harmful arguments.

Round 3:
Pro does prove that Con did not use a reliable source, though there were not many supporting sources on Pro's arguments in prior rounds Pro's first rebuttal did not help strengthen his point as he did not provide a counter source to prove his side. Pro did describe how withdrawal from alcohol can cause death just like withdrawal from water can. Pro's third rebuttal did prove that water can destroy, but not that it will destroy humans. Pro's rebuttals did not cover any of Con's points and called Con lazy and a plagiarizer which costs Pro the conduct points. Con successfully rebuts con's alcohol case by saying that you cannot get drunk on water. Con shows that Pro plagiarized worse than Con did in prior rounds.

Round 4:
Pro's rebuttals do little for the argument, and Pro also refuses to capitalize their "I"'s which costs them the spelling and grammar points. Though Con did not argue much in round 4, Con wins the argument points due to pro's shortcomings on the rebuttals.
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
sorry it took do long to post my arguments.believe it or not it's surprisingly hard to find reasons why water is harmful.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lol, its pretty hilarious.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both sides maintained reasonable conduct throughout the debate. Thus, conduct is tied. | S&G - Con. Pro made various grammatical errors and missed capitalization. For example, "yes i know that fact 3 seems quite irrational because"We need water to survive"and "everyone dies eventually" But i would like to prove that this has not always been the case." - the first word is not capitalized, and it seems like a single sentence due to the lack of a full stop in the first *intended* sentence. Pro frequently misses capitalization. "well now i will be taking the time", for example, has no capitalization. | Arguments - Con. Pro had to prove that water was a *toxic* and *addictive* substance, but they gave unrelated analogies that were very poorly justified. Everyone needs water and everyone who drinks water dies *could* be unrelated, and Pro had to *prove* they were related. Con managed to refute all such arguments. | 4 points to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.