Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Chumpwater Proposal

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:11:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 3:58:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
It would have to taste something awful to counter free.

What if it tasted like urine and had traces of urine in it?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:49:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.

The idea is that it will keep you alive, but if there's an affordable alternative which tastes considerably better and is not contaminated, you'd ditch the US water and buy from the higher quality local water businesses.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.

To what degree does there have to be contamination for it to be considered poisoning?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 4:51:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.

To what degree does there have to be contamination for it to be considered poisoning?

There would be the equivalent to a few drops of urine (and possibly very, very small amounts of human feces) in a normal-sized glass filled with this water.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 5:06:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 4:54:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:51:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.

To what degree does there have to be contamination for it to be considered poisoning?

There would be the equivalent to a few drops of urine (and possibly very, very small amounts of human feces) in a normal-sized glass filled with this water.

So you're going to condemn the poor to drinking water with amounts of human waste in it for as long as they are poor? Deliberately?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 5:11:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 5:06:07 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:54:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:51:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.

To what degree does there have to be contamination for it to be considered poisoning?

There would be the equivalent to a few drops of urine (and possibly very, very small amounts of human feces) in a normal-sized glass filled with this water.

So you're going to condemn the poor to drinking water with amounts of human waste in it for as long as they are poor? Deliberately?

As harsh as it is, the US cannot spend the next 200 years supplying water to African nations. The contamination would be an incentive to seek out other sources of water, while the free water would provide a "security net" for the desperate.
If the water was not contaminated, who the heck would purchase water from local businesses whenever there's free water of equal quality to be found nearby?
If no local water businesses form, they'll stay dependent on the US; we could never stop supplying then with water because they'd all die of thirst.
The contamination is so that a monopoly doesn't form, because that'd be synonymous with us locking ourselves inside a room and sliding the key through the door onto the outside.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 5:31:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 5:11:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 5:06:07 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:54:38 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:51:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:31:26 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 4:30:40 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/3/2015 2:55:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay. Imagine there's some poor African country where access to drinking water is not common.
So, imagine that the US provides them with free, drinkable water. However, there's a catch: the water is mildly contaminated and tastes awful.

Now, before you protest by saying "eVIL CapItALiSt CuNSerVtVi GrEdee WAntS tu pOISuN pooR PeePuL!", there's a good reason for this.
You see, if the US provided free high-quality drinking water, nobody there would pay for water from companies and the people would stay dependent on US water, meaning that we'd never be able to stop giving it to them. But if the water was slightly contaminated and tasted awful, anybody who could would pay for the better water from companies, meaning that people would wean themselves off the US water, and eventually we'd be able to stop providing it.
Thoughts?

Why can't they obtain high-quality drinking water themselves?

What you are suggesting is a policy that only "achieves" what existed in the first place.

I don't get it- you want to poison impoverished Africans in the hopes of making their lives better?

It's not so much poisoning as it is supplying them with water that nobody wants to drink but will sustain their lives.

To what degree does there have to be contamination for it to be considered poisoning?

There would be the equivalent to a few drops of urine (and possibly very, very small amounts of human feces) in a normal-sized glass filled with this water.

So you're going to condemn the poor to drinking water with amounts of human waste in it for as long as they are poor? Deliberately?

As harsh as it is, the US cannot spend the next 200 years supplying water to African nations. The contamination would be an incentive to seek out other sources of water, while the free water would provide a "security net" for the desperate.
If the water was not contaminated, who the heck would purchase water from local businesses whenever there's free water of equal quality to be found nearby?
If no local water businesses form, they'll stay dependent on the US; we could never stop supplying then with water because they'd all die of thirst.
The contamination is so that a monopoly doesn't form, because that'd be synonymous with us locking ourselves inside a room and sliding the key through the door onto the outside.

Not only that, but supplying water indefinitely to areas without water encourages higher populations to live there, and the problem just gets worse.

What much of Africa needs is better knowledge of birth control methods. Unfortunately, many there think that that is a conspiracy against the existence of black people...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz