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

Found in most Shampoos, Dihydrogen Monoxide kills 3500+ in the U.S. annually: Should it be banned?

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: 11/2/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 104746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)



Hello opponent! I am here to argue that the dangerous chemical called Dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. over 3500 people are killed by the noxious power of this potent chemical annually in the U.S.

But first, a little background on this chemical, its structure, and uses. Its constituent atoms have a bond angle of about 104.5 degrees. This is because the non-bonding electron pairs in this molecule force the covalent bonding pairs closer together, giving this substance a tetrahedral shape. It is an ingredient found in many shampoos, lotions, and soaps. horrifyingly, it is also sprayed onto most worldwide crops. unfortunately, due to the nature of this chemical, government agencies often overlook agricultural uses of this product. It is also used to produce the dyes used in blue jeans.

Lets hold our government leaders accountable and see this atrocity stopped for the sake of this environment! Show your support in the comments section.


"Dihydrogen monoxide" is water; "di" meaning "two", hydrogen, "mono" meaning one, "oxide"- oxygen. H2O. Water. Let's not ban water.
Debate Round No. 1


I disagree that water should be banned. You have completely overlooked the many thousands of deaths caused by this substance. Have you no heart? What do you say?


Banning water would kill more people than not banning water- indeed, there is no one who would be alive if we banned water who would not be alive if we do not ban it.
Debate Round No. 2


There are actually plenty of alternatives to water, just google it:

Thus, no one would dehydrate.

Now, I know you will try to say that providing everyone with enough water alternatives to survive is not feasible. But isn't it worth the effort? If something is not done, our whole race will go extinct!

I believe that con has not adequately defended her position, thus I believe the logical choice is to vote pro. Thanks for the great debate, con! Good luck!


None of those are really "alternatives" to water in that they are all made primarily of water:

"Providing 19 calories in a 100 ml amount, coconut water is 95% water"

So if we banned water, we would all dehydrate and die.

Banning water is, therefore, an awful idea.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by nobleislandbag 2 years ago
This is hilarious
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Adam Conover talked about Dihydrogen Monoxide once. It is H2O; water.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Masterful 2 years 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 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: Con pointed out that Dihydrogen Monoxide was H2O (water) meaning it would not be responsible for the 3500 deaths that Pro claimed. This vote requires no more explanation. Don't remove it, WhiteTroll.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.