Question: Should bottled water be banned?

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Bottled water should be banned!

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. .

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Way to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. "Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a "waste" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major "argument" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters)

Title: Water quality Content: Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because "we don't need it" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: thank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: it should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is "too much government. " By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying "I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a "punishment" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, "Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. " [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. "In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. " states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any "unclean" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that "Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. " [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com)

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: My argumentsOf all the very valid points I bring up, the Pro only responds to one of 15 examples, the one about joggers. Yes people survived before bottled water.... people also survived before smart phones too, but if you banned smart phones people wouldnt know how to function anymore........His arguments - 1 - "These two brands are essentially filtered tap water," - Meaning they are safer than tap water...."And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame." - I dont see how a product should be banned because wise and witty businessmen can create enterprises and jobs to meet the demand of portable bottled water.... should computers be banned since pound for pound they are making good money? Of course not. Its not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand with the potential for generating huge amounts of profit and you havent explained why it should br. - 2 - "While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established" - Your shooting yourself in the foot here Pro, that only reinforces my argument about how bottled water could be seen as healthier than tap water - 3 - Yes it is true that bottled water generates trash, but im curious about why your putting the blame on the water bottles instead of people..... It is people who throw them away rather than recycle them, and the blame should be on the consumers in this case, not the product. Anyone here who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle rather than recycle it knows very well it is their own fault for doing so. However the Pro is trying to blame the water bottle here....... thats absurd - 4 - "Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety." - Again, thanks for giving me such great arguments :)"Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources." - Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can live with paying $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they cant do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled Water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy...." the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes." - So your admitting that tap water can be very costly to society. Hmmm let me do the math here, Bottle of Water = $2Tap water that needs constant taxpayer dollars to stay in shape, at one point costing $17.5 billion in taxpayer dollars in the state of California alone....Which is cheaper again? - 5 - Now in this argument your claiming water companies are evil for trying to expand their profits, but how is this necessarily a bad thing? The US government has already shown how they do a dreadful job of providing us with water (pollution, flouride in tap water, leaky and poor conditions of the infrastructure, billions in costs in a YEAR, etc) whereas water companies are completely on their own to supply us with water, and they dont have access our taxes to fix their mistakes, giving them a hell of an incentive to make sure their systems are modern and up to speed....Pro's remarks:"If you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY""I choose not to because i like fizzy drinks"I like how the Pro tries to say that water is bad for your health yet states his preference for fizzy drinks, sort of implies he really doesnt know how anything about trying to be healthy... May i suggest a healthier alternative to those fizzy drinks, Oh yes i did ;D

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: "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.

Title: Which water is the best water Content: My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We’re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we’d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.

Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: However, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: "No one knows what the health outcomes are. "This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, "we don't know and I don't want to find out". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that "Bottled water is not safer". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, "Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered "injurious", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...]

Title: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water Content: In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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.

Title: Which water is the best water Content: Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water :1.Its not a good value2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.

Title: Which water is the best water Content: Bottled water is healthier and better than filtered water

Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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.

Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with “spring water” on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don’t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...

Title: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway Content: It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: 1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the "harmful" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as "wasting" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs....

Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting "Beiber-Fever". Tap water sucks.

Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: Before starting the debate, here are a few rules: 1. Please do not write things that are too off topic. (Things that are off topic, but related are okay) 2. Please, do not be rude. Argument 1: A lot of bottled water are actually just filtered tap water. Buying a pitcher water filter is cheaper than buying bottled water in the long term. [2] "In 2006, the Earth Policy Institute , a Washington-based NGO, found that around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water with minerals added later on, questioning assumptions over its special health impact. Similarly, research carried out by the University of Geneva for conservation group WWF in 2001 found that bottled water is not safer than tap water unless consumed in areas where water is contaminated. " [1] 2. Tap water contains fluoride, which is good for your teeth unless overdosed. "According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, infants begin to need fluoride supplements when they are six months old. If your local drinking water (tap water) contains at least 0.3 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, then it is usually best that they get that fluoride from fluoridated water. While you can instead give your child fluoride drops, there is the risk that he will get too much fluoride if he also drinks fluoridated water and gets too much fluoride, which can cause tooth staining." [3] 3. Bottled water is 10,000 times more expensive than tap, can be distributed without meeting tap water standards or testing for E.coli. Bottled water is also more wasteful, only 1 in 5 are recycled. [4] [1]http://www.totallydrinkable.com... [2]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com... [3]http://pediatrics.about.com... [4]www.onlineeducation.net/bottled_water

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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...

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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...

Title: My opponent picks the potential topic. Content: Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible topics for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. A good example of a topic is 'bottled water should be banned' while the topic 'books' should At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. 5th round-Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 3000Thank you.

Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: HA ARE YOU KIDDING ME? OF COURCE TAP WATER IS BETTER THAN BOTTLED WATER, WHO WOULDN'T THINK THAT. RETARDS OF COURSE.

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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.

Title: It quite simply can taste better. Content: Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste.

Title: Soda should be banned Content: Soda shouldn't be banned because part of human rights is we choose what we eat and drink so banning soda would take those rights away. Also, as soon as soda is banned, a new junk will take its place that is maybe even worse so that we will never be rid of un healthy food Furthermore, banning soda would make lots of people lose jobs which our society would have to deal with. This is why it is silly to ban soda, we have bigger problems to solve!

Title: Its harmful to the environment Content: There are environmental costs to purifying tap water too. Not to forget the toxic materials necessary to pump and deliver the water to the tap. Moreover the problems you raise are more with the bottles themselves and how we dispose of them than with the concept of bottled water per se. Biodegradable corn starch 'polymers' or a more responsible attitude to recycling would also solve the problem.

Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): "(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking." Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!

Title: Drinking Water Content: 1) Drinking water can serve as both a human right and a commodity. There are many companies that sell bottled water as a commodity like the Con claims and I am not denying that or saying that is wrong. However that does not completely negate the idea that humans have a right to clean drinking water because whether or not drinking water is a commodity or a right in a situation depends on two things, access to it and the right to keep it. In sub-Saharan Africa like the Con said there are many countries that are strapped in water resources. However the case is here that these areas have too little fresh water resources available to sustain their populations, not that they are taking it from people and giving it to other people. Drinking water becomes a human right when people have access to it and then that access is compromised or taken away and those people now have no other access to clean drinking water. Anything other scenario though water becomes a commodity so drinking water is a human right and a commodity, and just because it is one does not mean it negates the other. 2) If Drinking water was a human right, it would not abolish the existence of bottled-water companies. These companies take water from a place where they are not taking it away from other people, and market it as a commodity based on convenience. It is their product and they have the right to sell it, and since drinking water can be a human right and a commodity, bottled water companies can still sell these products. Lets look at the thirsty jogger in the Con's example. As the jogger goes into the store to take the water, that is plain theft because in this case the water is a commodity, a product sold by a company and put on sale. The Jogger still has other access to other sources of drinking water such as the tap in their own home or the water fountain right outside the store. If the Jogger buys the water, and then has it taken away from them, and that bottled water was the only source of clean drinking water they have in their life, THEN it is a violation of human rights. However in the jogger example shown here the bottled water is of convenience to the jogger, not of guarantee, so no human rights are in question and the jogger still has to pay for the water. " If we affirm that access to drinking water is a human right, then there is ultimately nothing stopping this scenario from becoming a very stark reality"Think of the right to free speech. A protester cant simply walk into a store and take a megaphone to go back outside and say why they think corporations are not people right? of course not. That is because the megaphone, like the water, is in this case merely a commodity sold on convenience. All humans have the right to free speech but according to what the Con's logic says there would be people stealing megaphones from stores all the time. If the Con thinks that if access to water was a right then people have the right to take water, then if the Con believes free speech is a human right then people have the right to steal megaphones too. If that person then has his megaphone taken away by a cop while the protester was not breaking any rules, then that could be an infringement on the rights of the person's freedom of speech. The water argument goes the same way because like the megaphone, the water was originally just a commodity that could be bought and sold. It is only when those things are taken away does it become a violation of human rights. 3) "all he's done is help frame the debate and claim that anything that is necessary for survival is a right. However I would like to remind all the voters that without a legitimate warrant to back this claim up, all I have to do to refute it is say that it isn't true."Here the Con is saying that I am claiming anything that is necessary for survival is a right, and wants me to provide a warrant to back this up....Human right: Includes the right to life (The Con and I previously agreed on this)Right to life: The human right that humans have the right to live Live: For a human to live they need food, water, shelter, etc. Water: Something necessary for humans to live and must have access to in order to do soIf a person is denied their only access to water, it endangers their right to live, that right is defined as a human right, so the right to access clean drinking water is a human right.

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: "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.

Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway

Title: It quite simply can taste better. Content: There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.

Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Many bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. "Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive "Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water." (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment "Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose." (2) "Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat)." (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer "Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants." (2) "The fact of the matter is" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests." (3) "Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element." (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? "There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost." (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0

Title: Which water is the best water Content: The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.

Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.

Title: Water quality Content: The quality of water is very high in this country is very good. In foreign countries bottled water is only consumed because they cannot drink the tap water. There is no need to drink it.

Title: plastic bags Content: should plastic bags be banned

Title: Which water is the best water Content: You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it’s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.

Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: Here are your arguments and my responses "Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap." There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. "Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks." Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5"40 mM.' [1] "You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive." Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. "bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...

Title: Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles Content: You will be the death of us all. If water was sold in plastic bottles, people would be forced to drink tap water and use other containers. You just can't produce enough glass to meet the demand. What's more, glass is extremely fragile and will break if I drop it, but plastic bottles won't. I know plastic bottles harm the environment, but glass bottles would take up even more energy and resources, which would do equal or more damage to the environment. Plastic bottles for life!

Title: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine Content: It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters.

Title: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water Content: We could, if we could be bothered, take water purification devices with us. The inconvenience suffered would be far preferable than seeing beautiful paradise islands overcome by plastic bottles, as has happened in Thailand to my knowledge and I'm sure other places too. We have a responsibility when we travel, the responsibility to leave the place as we found it - as much as we possibly can. Dumping water bottles ruins an environment for decades to come. Taking our own means of purifying water is the responsible thing to do.

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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.

Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is "federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. "fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet."[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying "I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.

Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org...

Title: Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Content: My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is "prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned" Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job! Seriously, though. MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so. But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - "Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made." Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time. I assure you that if the words "Dihydrogen Monoxide" had been changed to "water" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%. Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them. Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.]. Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did. And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else]. Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance. I'll go over this one more time. "Dihydrogen Monoxide" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X. Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned. Consider this hypothetical topic: "People should be brutally slain" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because "People" refers to people in general. Here's another one. "I'm better than my opponent." PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING, he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing "Dihydrogen Monoxide" to mean "Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof. Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.

Title: plastic bottles should be banned Content: Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!

Title: Water is a toxic/addictive substance Content: 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.

Title: alcohol Content: Should alcohol be banned? and people who drink automatically be sent to jail?

Title: NO,need to ban just reduce the use of plastic Content: I don't think it using plastic should be banned, but we should reduce the use. Plastic is necessary and has it's uses, but we could reduce and replace plastic shopping bags, for example, with cloth or brown paper. Our aim should be to seek alternative measures.

Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: In response to my opponents challenge. "Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. " "The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water."(1) "The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. " (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...

Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.

Title: Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded Content: Hello, to everyone who reads this and to my worthy opponent. Well, I completely agree that water is a human right and cannot be owned sold or bartered. To assure you guys, water is actually free. Nobody stops you from drinking water from the ponds or rivers. If anyone does that you can shut them up by shouting it out that water is a gift of god and not your property. For instance the rural India, everybody pumps up water from the underground aquifer " mostly to irrigate the fields; but the same water is also used for daily needs like bathing, drinking etc. The water one gets in the drinking bottles is also free, what the companies charge for is the plastic used in making the bottle, the cost of molding a bottle and that of purifying the water and adding essential minerals. THANK YOU!

Title: Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Content: First, thank you Who for taking and responding this debate so quickly. I'm glad, Who, that you knew exactly what dihydrogen monoxide is. While I was hoping for someone who didn't know, I am prepared to refute my claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. Yes, Dihydrogen monoxide is hydric acid, H20, or water . However, a qualification has not been set to what it should be banned from, to, or from where. Actually gathering up all of the dihydrogen monoxide in this world would be imposible, as there is no container big enough to fit all of the water in the world simultaneously. According to http://www.dhmo.org... , Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made. However, fictional and non-fictional, I will limit this debate showing why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned in any form, thus as the resolution does not qualify that "all" dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. I propose that if I find any reason why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, I win the debate. 1. Dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from all mogwai. After watching Gremlins, I would strongly suggest that dihydrogen monoxide NOT be placed on any mogwai, for any reason, what so ever. In spite of the fact that this causes mogwai to reproduce, the potential for harm from one mogwai can be detrimental to society. This can clearly be seen in the Gremlin series of movies. On a side note, I'm sure that all wicked witches, regardless of their directionality, would support a ban of dihydrogen monoxide, as that book and movie "The Wizard of Oz" has clearly shown that when placed upon the skin of a wicked witch, it causes almost certain death. However, I am not a proponent of wicked witches, so I do not plan on supporting this stance. 2. Contaminated dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from drinking and entering all other sources In third world countires, it is determined that bad drinking water kills 4000 children a day. http://www.unicef.org... Additionally, grey-water runoff from farms, factories, and sewer drains causes a contamination of drinking water supplies making water undrinkable and potentially carcinogenic. "Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life." Yes, dihydrogen monoxide does in fact contribute to our warmth and weather patterns. But it is also a leading cause of damages in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and various other weather related phenomena. Is rain not dihydrogen monoxide? The last time I went out in the rain I'm pretty sure it converted to water. Please inform me if someone else has had any experiences of being rained on by nature by something other than water. "Perhaps the reason we find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water". One of the leading causes of tumors is contaminated dihydrogen monoxide. While I will agree that it is not dihydrogen monoxide in its pure form that is causing the cancer; instead, it is the vector. Many communities already have a ban on dihydrogen monoxide if the chemicals in it are not safe for human consumption. 3. A ban on dihydrogen monoxide does not necessarily mean a ban of the chemical, rather a ban on the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Frequently, during summer months, many states, counties, and municipalities impose bans on water. This is due to the shortage of dihydrogen monoxide, not the complete prohibition of the substance. Since this is done to preserve the continued supply of water, the con is suggesting that in times of drought, we should not ban or ration water supplies. Most importantly, the con is suggesting that we never place a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. While I will admit that it is a vital and necessary component in all this organic, Who is suggesting that no ban should, in any form, be placed upon it.

Title: Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles Content: First, I think you don't know that price of bottled water is 1000 times more than tap water, and you can boil the tap water and pour it into glass cups. Second, aluminium cans are also a choice to replace plastic and many drinks are packed with aluminium cans. They are large amount produced. Lastly, plastic can't smelt so they exist in this world for more than 1000 years at least. But glass and aluminium can be smelted down and change into something new. THE END

Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)

Title: Water is bad 4 u Content: Do you know how many people choke on water every ten seconds? One. And that's way too many. We need to fix this. This is a serious problem that is nationally unrecognized. People need to be aware of water and its hazardous effects on the human throat. People also need to learn how to correctly swallow water. I am here to debate whether or not water should be sold in schools, sporting events, or even in grocery stores. I think we would be safer if we didn't even have oceans.

Title: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water Content: This doesn't apply to most Western countries though and people there could easily rely on tap water for their needs. << wrong side of the debate :/

Title: People believe the marketing hype too much Content: Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.

Title: Refrigerators with water dispensers and ice dispensers are better! Content: Before I begin: thanks to my opponent, as well as the voters. 1. On what basis is this claim founded upon? Because it is certainly a false notion. A 24-pack/35-pack of 500mL bottled water costs $4~6 at Safeway, even cheaper at Costco. Now, one-gallon waters costs a dollar, and it lasts an average family (with four people) half a week. That means $2 per week, $8 per month, and ultimately $96 per year. Even cheaper is getting water filled from a water vending machine. They are quite safe, with multiple stages for clarification; yet, they do not compromise their cheap price tag (20 cents or so for a gallon). The $760 claim is simply preposterous. If bottled water was that expensive, then they would have become long obsolete. As for the cost, bottled water is not the only option. Water filters, like Brita, are also a great alternative. A 10-pack costs around 45$ at Costco, and each should be used for three months (recommended). That means that, for $45 (plus the cost of the water filter itself, which costs as low as $25) one can last 30 months, or two years and a half. 2. The same goes for bottled waters and filters. Buying three - five bottled water every time you drop by your grocery store will keep you well-supplied for at least a week and a half. Water filters also allow users to get water anytime they want (as long as they have tap water). 3. Anecdotal evidence = / = applicable in debates. Apparently, your so-called friend has not heard of buying bottled water or using water filters. It's his fault for being allured to sugar rushes. 4. Yes, tap water is not very healthy. That is why there are healthy alternatives available in today's market that are cheap and inexpensive. 5. Source for this claim? Water filters are quite scrupulous when it comes to eradicating all the debris out of the water. Sole contention: There is no reason to pay an extra of hundreds of dollars when there are two prominent alternatives that are cheaper. The cost to fix a water dispenser could also add on to the already-hefty price tag. Vote Con. Sources: http://www.howitworks.net... http://hypertextbook.com...

Title: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Content: Thanks to my opponent. "Fluoride should not be added to drinking water" is an absolute statement. My opponent's position therefore seems to be (and his initial post appears to back this up) that fluoride should not be added to drinking water under any circumstances and that if it is currently being added then this should be stopped. My position is simple: In some cases (notably, areas where people aren't getting enough ) then fluoride should in fact be added. I will examine my opponent's arguments and sources first. "1. Fluoride is poisonous." All substances are poisonous, including all food, drink and medicines. Toxicity is determined by dose. The amount of salt you would find in most salt cellars (dispensers) would be more than enough to kill you. Even water itself, the very substance that anti-fluoridation campaigners seek to protect the purity of, will kill you if you drink too much. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... "on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to "contact a poison control center immediately" if you swallow your toothpaste." It doesn't say that on my tube of Colgate Total. "2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda." On the contrary, the use of fluoride in drinking water has been made to seem desirable by science and only opposed by propaganda. If you define 'propaganda' then we could discuss this in more detail. "3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay." Obviously not. Teeth decay for many reasons and were decaying long before fluoride was ever added to water, however fluoride absolutely does protect against tooth decay, as the evidence in my sources will prove. "4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY..." I guess the argument to this point hinges on whether you are pro universal health care. I am and firmly believe that there is enough evidence to show that fluoride in the water saves taxpayers enough in free dental care for kids from low income families. "5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount." My opponent is absolutely correct that we need proper evidence of overall fluoride intake, if people, especially young children are definitely getting enough fluoride then there is no need to give them more, but this is often not the case as I will prove below. The quote with statistic does not cite any scientific source, merely makes unfounded claims. My opponent's sources are both websites set up by anti-fluoridation campaigners and do not express a balanced view, I urge readers to examine them and compare them to my sources below which are scientific or journalism based. "To its critics ... the sure benefits .. may pale in comparison to the uncertain consequences...To its advocates, fluoridation is one of the most effective ways of achieving equality in dental health...no-one seriously doubts that fluoridation does stop decay." http://news.bbc.co.uk... "Fluoride can greatly help dental health by strengthening the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to tooth decay. It also reduces the amount of acid that the bacteria on your teeth produce...Fluoride is found naturally in ... water supplies, and is also added to some.... One part of fluoride for every million parts of water (1 ppm) has been shown to have the best effect. All water contains some fluoride." http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk... Can't believe I am out of space already, not used to this word limit. Resolution negated. Thanks.

Title: People believe the marketing hype too much Content: so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.

Title: It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing Content: Walking in the countryside, playing chess or swimming may improve one's sense of well-being - but these activities have no detrimental consequences for the wider environment. This is not just a reference to the scientifically debatable concept of 'carbon footprints' &c. involved in bottle production and transit, but to the landfill and litter that the consumption of bottled water inevitably produces. If it is the feeling of wellbeing one seeks, then purchase only one bottle, and re-fill it, as required from the tap, or perhaps a tabletop water filter. One doesn't need to keep purchasing bottled water to feel good.

Title: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway Content: In the UK the terms 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' denote water from an aquifer or underground source, with rules on hygiene and mineral content. Similar laws on how you describe your product exist in the US. If you're stupid enough to pay a premium for something which just says 'water, product of the Coca-Cola company' then you probably deserve getting the hefty dose of bromide that came free in bottles of Dasani. More importantly, whether or not the bottled water comes from the tap, there is still the convenience of being able to purchase, albeit at a premium, water without having to carry a bottle around with you. Moreover if you were, say, travelling in India, or any similar area, the very process of filtering the tap water is rather useful given the reputation of the country's 'potable' water supply.

Title: You choose, I choose. Content: The resolution is: "American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply." This is country specific because third world countries clearly need flouridated water supplies. My opponent has chosen Pro and this is split BOP. My opponent reserves the right to swap positions if he wants to in the first round. I am prepared to debate either side.

Title: This House would monetize water Content: Good day, The resolution that stands before us today is THW monetize water and we on side opp strongly disagree. For the reasons I will now state for you. 1. Water is a human right Water is a human right we should not be able to sell it just as we do net sell air This is absolutely ridiculous water is a right not a product we can sell We need water to survive and so we should be monitoring the use of water not Selling it 2. What about less privleged people What happens in third world countries where people can barely afford food and homes never mind the price of water wich by the way is 1Million times the price of tap water. people are dying from no clean water and we want to sell it to them? This is infair and unjust. 3. There is no garuntee of cleanliness Bottled water is often just tap water that is slightly filtered and given a fancy package plus there is still no garuntee that the water provided will be 100% pure and clean no matter what it says on the package people can still keep dying of these water realated parasites and even worse they will be paying for something that could make them sick or even worse kill them This is absolutely unjust and inhumane 4. What about Corp.s If we allow Corparations to gain such a huge resource such as water what is gaurenteeing that they won't take control and make it almost imossible to get enough water We cannot risk this happening For all the reasons I have just stated and many more this resolution Must and SURLEY will FALL Thank you

Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: You call me trolling? Look who is talking, I should report you. This debate has nothing to say. Of cource Tap Water is better. Who wouldn't agree?

Title: Which water is the best water Content: People prefer variety. There are various flavors of water available, to suit whatever your preferences are. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.

Title: Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun Content: No because people do not let plastic out in the sun melt into their drinking water - they are not stupid. And those who do (I can't imagine anyone who does this) probably don't consume it daily - either way, it is not healthy.

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: i meant bottled water is a scam

Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: FYI if you type in bottled water in google image/google you will only see bottled water IN SUPERMARKERTS have a look http://www.google.co.nz... and what are you talking about bottled water being in classrooms, holding while you run, in the city excuse me! back in the 1950's in NYC you wouldent SEE ANYBODY holding bottled water not in the 40's, 30's, 20's!! ever and humans still survived it was introduced in 1970's 1) Bottled water isn't a good value Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame. 2) No healthier than tap water In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. 3) Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere. 4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety. This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes. 5) The corporatization of water In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies. Water is being called the "Blue Gold" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource. Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.BOOM i win and also if you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY i can live on 355ml of water everyday no problem but i choose not to because i like fizzy drinks

Title: DDO TT2: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. Content: Introduction:I will now present my rebuttals.I have to remind everyone that Pro's position is that Drinking water should be a human right and not a commodity and Con's position is that Drinking water should be both a human right AND a commodity. In other words both positions only disagree on the commodity part.Rebuttals:Contention 1: Here Con contradicts himself. He states that he is arguing that drinking water "can" both be a human right and a commodity, but in his first contention, he challenges drinking water being a human right and how it would be better as a commodity.I will discuss both points:Drinking water as a human right AND a commodity:Drinking water can't be a human right and a commodity at the same time. By definition, drinking water as a human right should be able to be claimed as a matter of right. If drinking water is sold, people that can't afford it would be deprived of their human right.Every other definition of human right used could lead to a fallacy of equivocation.Drinking water as a commodity and not a human right:This is the position that would make sense for the contention. From the contention, Con states that having drinking water as a human right is dangerous because tyrannical governments could take advantage of that, and that drinking water as a commodity doesn't have that problem or similar issues.I disagree with Con's argument here. A tyrannical government being able to affect human rights is not a problem on what are these human rights. Life is a human right too, and if it's "beneficial" to these tyrannical government to control it, I guarantee you that it will find other ways to do it.And drinking water being a commodity doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't guarantee it's acquisition (or easy acquisition) in a country with a tyrannical government, specially if they can control the companies that sell this water, or what enters or leave the country. But not only that but there is a new entity capable of controlling this important resource for life, the companies. [1]Contention 2: Here is another contention that challenges drinking water as a human right.As the theory of Hohfeld states, here can be no right in one person without a corresponding duty in another. [2] This is important because a right is not less right because it "requires work".Contention 3:"Is it justified to take away a private water supply for the sake of others?"Yes, it is. Because it is a human right and because it is necessary for the life of these others. Every economical disadvantages from those companies will be benefits for those that acquire the human right to water. And it's not only to survive, a better health leads to less money used on health care and medication. Then Con states that there might be problems with ownership. These problems are only relevant if water is not a human right.The reason is because human rights are more important than ownership, if these are attempting those rights, example slavery.People owning other people is against human rights, so that ownership should not be respected.So I ask Con to establish his position correctly in the next round so I can address it correctly.One last thin for this contention, the third link is broken.Contention 4:Here we are back to the first position.It is false that currently water is treated as a commodity and a human right.UN recognition of the human right to water doesn't make every group respect that recognition. [1]And as stated before, drinking water can't be a right and a commodity at the same time.There are also cases where privatization didn't work like in Chile. [3]Rebuttals on "attacks of Pro's case":P1: Con agrees on the first point but is back to the second position. He mentions a problem that is explained in the first contention which was already addressed.P2: Con agrees again and claims that this can be done with drinking water as a commodity, which is false considering the huge amount of people that doesn't have access to drinking water because they can't afford it.P3 and P4 are addressed on the rebuttals of the contentions.I await for the Con's response and the clarification of what seems to me like a contradiction.Thanks. Vote Pro.Sources:1. Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized (Video). http://www.youtube.com...2. http://www.ourcivilisation.com...3. http://www.eclac.org...

Title: People should eat all food in drink form Content: People can still choke on water and other drinks. Even if we made all food in drink form, it would be taking away one of the greatest things in our life. Everyone loves food and I think everyone can agree that a burger is better than a burger smoothie. It would be like banning all beaches because there are sharks in the water. Sure there are some shark attacks, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of it all together.

Title: Summary Content: The motion in debate calls for the proposition to defend that in general, the sole owner of and provider for water should be the state. They have failed. There is no piece of evidence they presented that I didn’t either successfully debunk or accepted and then used against the motion. Some of their points weren’t supported by analysis or evidence. They said companies can’t be trusted to justify the proposal but in their rebuttal they accepted that governments, like Venezuela’s, can’t be trusted either. They said that the government is the only proper agent because of having the budget and the political support. I demonstrated that there are huge private companies and that there is growing discontent with state monopolies and growing acceptance of privatization (like in Scotland) and that a policy’s popularity is different than it’s quality. They proved that fresh water is dwindling, but failed at explaining why that means the motion should be approved. I countered by showing how by giving away water, you could cause it to dwindle faster. They conceded that there can be some privates amongst suppliers Prop We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations. Prop. contradicted itself. First they said that prop one cannot play with supply and demand with something as important as water. Privatize water would be like privatize air. We need them equally and the state should provide enough for everyone. And then, in another point they said prop We are not suggesting giving free bottle water to everyone but the company that provides this product should be owned by the state. So on one hand water should be free or near free (no supply and demand games) and on the other they say they are not suggesting free bottled water. And does a bottled water company enter the category of need? No. I provided a framework for analysis for the examples of both State being successful and privately owned companies failing: they’re isolated examples. I provided evidence that proves state owned is a bad idea because it usually fails. I explained why they usually fail. Political abuses, lack of innovation (when innovative technologies like desalination are crucial), too cheap prices creating a high demand. Also, I linked the examples of private failings to them being protected by the government’s dealings with lobbyists and pressure groups. Lastly I provided spaces the poor to still get water while keeping the quality for everyone else. For this reasons, I think this policy should be opposed.

Title: Soft drinks should be sold at school Content: School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds, schools could sell healthier foods for their student to eat and could earn heaps more money than selling soft drinks. I strongly believe that World's governments should banned or restricted soft drinks and alcohol, because it is harmful to yourself and the government. Government shouldn't banned drugs, because drugs only harm yourself, not others; I am sure people could make right choices for themselves not others. By the way, I still confidently thought soft drinks id bad for all of us, because of the nasty ingredients the Coca-Cola company has put into it to harm students and adults. Soft drinks should be banned!!!

Title: You choose, I choose. Content: I'll be presenting an argument "For" the resolution "American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply." As per the comments, Wylted and I have agreed to share the BoP.I'll be presenting arguments in a punctuated form, hitting on the main idea. Later in the debate, I will expand upon these as needed. Argumentation1. Fluoridation is unethical.It is a generally understood American ideal that people should not be forced to do things they do not want to do. This is especially relevant in areas where some unnecessary and unhelpful action is being forced upon us.While it may be easy to think about water as a "service" that one does not have to use, one cannot forget that Americans are required to pay taxes for their water. That means this service is not free, but instead a product that is being purchased from the local government by the people. This purchase is in no way a choice on the part of the citizen. As such, municipalities are abridging the people's freedom of choice by forcing them to imbibe a substance that they do not want. Fluoridation is not a reflection of the will of the people, but instead an arbitrary choice by the government of the United States. The situation would be no different if instead of fluoride, the government introduced opiates or some truth agent into the water system. In that scenario, the people would still a) pay for it and b) have no choice in the matter. Not flouridating the water is the natural solution to this ethical dilemma. 2. Water fluoridation is unnecessary. When water fluoridation was introduced in the 1940's, there was not adequate access to fluoride in the United States. It was used by dentists, but no "over the counter" fluoride products were made. Today, the opposite is the case. It is commonplace for toothpastes, mouthwashes and other teeth cleaning agents to have fluoride included in the product. As such, it is no longer necessary to fluoridate water, as ethical and cheap alternatives exist. It cannot be said that "poor people don't have access to fluoride", as these teeth cleaning agents are inexpensive and massively available. Those who do not use toothpaste and similar products are actively making a choice that could result in tooth decay. This choice is their fundamental right as Americans and it should not be taken away. Bad dental heigene is in no way a communicable disease. A person with bad teeth in no way poses a risk to others. Therefore, there is no justification for forcing "dental health" upon people, since their choice to have poor dental health only negatively impacts themselves. Furthermore, it cannot be said that poor dental health negatively affects others through economic mechanisms. One cannot go to the emergency room for lost or decaying teeth nor can they use other publically funded medical services for that issue. As such, the economic cost of choosing to have poor dental health is not transferred to other parties. 3. Water fluoridation may not even be medically beneficial. There have not been any controlled tests of water fluoridation, which sets it apart from every other legal drug offered to the public. [1] Some studies (mainly those performed by government agencies) find that water fluoridation increases dental health. Others find no link between fluoridation and dental health, while others still find that fluoridation has negative health benefits that go far outside dental health. Given the apparent lack of consensus on the effectiveness of water fluoridation, the claim that water should be fluoridated becomes even more dubious. Not only is it unethical, not only is it unnecessary, but it may be flat out ineffective at accomplishing its stated goal. Recognizing this, my previous two points stand even stronger, as one cannot claim that there are demonstrative health benefits that exist to outweigh unethical and unnecessary water fluoridation. ConclusionThis has been a cursory introduction of my arguments. I will likely not present any arguments that are unrelated to the ones presented here. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1 - http://www.livescience.com...;

Title: It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. Howeve... Content: Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy.

Title: This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks Content: First I would like to start off by refuting my fellow opponent's arguments. But before I do, I would like to clarify that I am NOT supporting his side. I am on proposition so it's my obligation to defend the resolution. The resolution states that "This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks." I am hereby supposed to agree and give reasons why we should ban the sale of large-sized soft -drinks. My arguments say that soft-drink itself is harmful and the ingredients inside harm us even further to severe diseases. I also mentioned that soft-drinks contribute to environmental damage. And my last argument was saying that soft-drinks are part of the reason why obesity is skyrocketing in USA. So my arguments do not support my opponent's side. My opponent claiming that my arguments support his side is a clear misinterpretation he made. Now, I would like to move on to refuting. My opponent's first argument states that the government shouldn't restrict some people's pleasure. Is killing yourself a pleasure? Sure you might feel comfortable and joyful that instant, but it's government's obligation - duty - to alert us and motivate us to do the right thing. Again, as I said in my previous argument, drinking large-size soft-drinks can actually harm each and everyone of us. Drinking large-size soft-drinks can affect the environment in a negative way and eventually harm us - either indirectly or directly. The government should take part in something the whole US citizens could be harmed. My opponent's second argument is that restricting will inhibit our freedom of choice. The government has a right to act accordingly if we are planning to kill ourselves. It might sound ironic that you might be killed by drinking large-size soft-drinks but continuous consumption of this beverage will result in unpleasant and nasty diseases. Again, government is allowed to help us with our choice. The police force try to save us when we are about to jump off the bridge. This applies to government. The government is trying to help us, not take away our freedom. By saying that government is trying to take away people's freedom, my opponent misunderstood the purpose of the large-size soft-drink ban. My opponent's third argument is that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. This argument is helping my side. He is saying that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. I will accept his argument. Yes. Not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. Thank you opposition for supporting my side and actually giving strong evidence to support my side. Lastly, I would like to make one more argument of my own. My argument is that although sad, most American"s don"t have the self-control to be allowed to make free choices about what they eat. This is what I was saying the whole time. People need government's supervision. About 60% of people who drink soft-drinks can't restrict themselves from developing serious diseases and obesity. Of course, some of this might be accountable for people with diseases or medical disorders that aren't their fault, but that"s only a small portion of the 60%. That"s 6 out of 10 people; if those 6 people COULD control themselves, they probably would have already, and they wouldn"t BE obese in the first place. Thank you and please vote for proposition.

Title: Smoking bans are unconstitutional Content: I believe such things should be left to small business or places that want to ban it. To give big government power (and I'm not conservative) to make laws banning things is similar to Prohibition. It's tyranny. Only institutions should be able to determine whether to ban something or not.

Title: Soda should be banned Content: Though soda by no means should be banned forever, I must ask, are we debating about schools or all of life?

Title: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Content: I welcome the readers and my opponent. Resolved: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Even though society as a whole has been conditioned to accept that fluoride is "good for us", that is in fact not the case. Have you ever thought about how fluoride "protects" our teeth? Does it not do this by "killing" the bacteria that are on our teeth? So how does it "kill" these bacteria? Well, it must be "poisonous" to enable it to "kill"...and it is...and if fluoride is ingested it doesn't magically become "unpoisonous"...it is still poisonous, and is therefore harmful. That is why it should not purposefully be added to anyone's drinking water. Pro will attempt to affirm this resolution and offers the following points of consideration for the readers: 1. Fluoride is poisonous and harmful to the human body. Even on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to "contact a poison control center immediately" if you swallow your toothpaste. 2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda. Originally this poisonous by-product (fluoride) involved those businesses manufacturing aluminium with the resulting waste usually being sodium fluoride. In Britain today, the most frequently used toxic waste product used for fluoridation comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry. However, the principles are the same and what happened in the first half of the 20th century is just as relevant as to what is happening today. Through the use of propaganda, fluoride has been made to seem to be desirable, rather than treated as the poisonous by-product that it is. http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f5] 3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay. Tooth decay is caused by the action of cariogenic substances which release acids which then attack tooth enamel. http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f6] 4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY to have this fluoride added to their water. People are being forced to pay for poison to be added to their water! This is yet another reason that it should not be added to drinking water! 5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount. http://www.nofluoride.com... [2nd red triangle in points] I now look forward to my opponent's response.

Title: Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. Content: The fact that anybody would want the gov. to regulate the quality of water is insanity. The U.S. gov. has made enough mistakes already and this doesn't need to add to the list. All they would do is screw it up, currently water quality is decided by the state, but if the gov. would take over full control they would first off be overwhelmed. Also every state is different, you cant have the same regulations in CA as you do in PA, but the gov. would most likely just blanket all regulations under one. Also everyone has a different idea of water quality. There is an 8$ bottle of water that is black with dirt but its considered "healthy". Listen everyone is different so if the people are ok with drinking sh** then I have no problem with it. (If you have any other aruements in the con of this topic please let me know!)

Title: Which water is the best water Content: According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities—such as distillation or coronation—are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama’s Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb.

Title: Alcohol Content: Thank you. Since it's not been established, the BoP is on Con. Alcohol is currently legal, and as such, he is arguing against the status quo. I'll briefly rebut my opponent's arguments and mention my own. I'll expand these in the next round. My opponent argues that alcohol should be banned because it sometimes negatively affects society. However, this is faulty reasoning. Simply because something sometimes affects society negatively, this does not mean it should be made illegal. Cars cause car accidents sometimes. Does this mean we should ban cars? Of course not. My opponent argues: P1: Whatever affects society negatively and causes people to die should be banned P2: Alcohol affects society negatively and causes people to die. C: Alcohol should be banned. As you can see, the first premise is what I have attacked. It's simply too broad, and would also mean the ban of many other things. (Ie. texting). How many people die from texting while driving? Should we make texting illegal? Obviously not. My arguments: I'll briefly mention that since so many people drink alcohol, More than half of Americans 12 and older drink alcohol. (http://alcoholism.about.com...) It's unlikely that simply banning alcohol would stop them from drinking. I'll also mention that alcohol sales contribute greatly to the economy. To ban it would create a vast blackmarket, which the US economy would have to fight. In other words, the US wouldn't be making any money from alcohol sales, and would have to spend money to fight it. My opponent's arguments stand refuted.

Title: water be considered a public good and not be privatized Content: Answers to my opponent's questions: 1. I don't see why not. There are several private water companies (such as the American States Water Company) that co-exist with the government's water department. Their prices would have to be similar to the water department's in order to compete. 2. I would think this question is irrelevant to the debate. True, taxes paid to the government translate to public welfare, while bills paid to a company go to the company's employees/shareholders, but in either case you are trading money for the things that you need. 3. "Will the bills payed by the public be consistent with their water usage?" Assuming that the private companies in question are in US, I would say that there would have to be a fixed rate on water in order for the company to survive. If water companies were as corrupt as Bechtel, they would quickly lose their customers to the Water Department. My opponent asks me to cite a source. I would like to ask him how one searches whether bills payed by the public are consistent with their usage. If he cannot answer this question satisfactorily, ignore his request for a source. 4. Well, to start off with they conserve water (www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=208593). Also, bottled water industries promote recycling (evidence is printed on water bottles). CX: Main round 1. Explain how the fact that companies are motivated by economic profit means that they cannot provide affordable water to all individuals. 2. True, water is a right, but is purified water a right? 3. Explain how the relationship between culture and water is relevant to this debate. 4. How often does a water company dramatically increase the price of water? CX: CX 1. "...the money we pay to the government does not go to the governments pocket rather it is used to help the public in every way possible." Really, so government officials don't need to be paid? Water department employees work for free? The cost of purifying and transporting water is nil? As you can see, many of the expenses related to water are the same for public and private. There is thus no real economic difference between getting your water from a public or private source. My opponent claims that "we would have to pay about three times as much money as we pay the government", but this is derived from an extreme case of corruption, and not from his experience or from a reliable source. 2. "...the money used to improve these technologies still comes from the public. By advancing there technologies, they are moving forward but they also need the budget needed for the advancement." Very true, but it would be the same if the government was advancing these technologies. The private sector has more incentive to advance these technologies because of competition, as mentioned before. 2a. "...there is no need to improve the purifying technology used by the government." I'm sure that was the mind-set of the general public before cars were made. 'We don't need to improve our transportation. Our horse-drawn carts have served us for quite a while and are very efficient if you ask me'. 3. "My opponent; however, failed to provide me with a scenario in which the privatization of water showed a positive outcome." See my Jerusalem Post source from my answer to my opponent's question 4.

Title: Drinking Water Content: For the sake of maximum clarification, I will refute my opponent's argument in the exact order he has presented them. 1. + The resolution gives my opponent the burden to prove that access to drinking water is a human right instead of a commodity. Meaning he is not allowed to attempt to achieve both at the same time, he must show that access to drinking water ought not be a commodity, and ought instead be a human right. + We've already established that access to drinking water is need for survival. That is painfully obvious. My opponent has not, however, established that it is a right. He has the claim, he lacks the warrant and the impact. + My opponent neither proves nor establishes anything here. 2. + The argument my opponent makes here is equivalent to a forfeit. He is advocating that water can exist as a commodity, which violates his BOP to show that water is instead a Human Right. + Exactly, the jogger's act is theft. Which shows us that he does not have the human right to have access to that drinking water. Furthermore to refute the later half of my opponent's argument, he has yet to establish access to drinking water as a human right. + In regards to my opponent's free speech example, I must ask; what? What on earth is my opponent attempting to advocate here? The right to free speech, and access to drinking water are two completely different things. The former is a deeply established right, one in which the parameters and restrictions are clearly known. The supposed right to "access to drinking water" is exceedingly vauge, and unfounded in the first place. Furthermore, my opponent has the burden to specifically outline the right to access to drinking water before they may make an argument such as this. Otherwise this argument unfounded and unviable. 3. + The logical syllogism my opponent provides doesn't suffice to advocate access to drinking water as a human right. Were this logic to suffice, then suddenly everything is a human right is one can justify it linked to another right. For instance Black metal: Includes the right of free speech Speaking of murder: Links to black metal Mass murdering millions of people: Linked to black metal Mass murder: Is human right protected under the freedom of speech. In conclusion, my opponent's warrants are weak and do not suffice to warrant access to drinking water as a human right. He does not meet his own burden of proof. And his clash on the Con case is far from viable. There can be no other vote in this debate than for the Con.

Title: non therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals should be banned Content: it should be banned because would you want to have the animals antibiotics in your system

Title: Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda Content: Although you are valid on your thoughts, you are not seeing the big picture. I do not believe banning soda from children will solve any problems. If a parent is (unlikely) able to keep a child from having soda, they will be exposed to it later on in life because of its prevalence in society. I believe the only way to take the problems of soda out of the picture is to take soda out of American society. Overall, I believe denying soda to a toddler does not avoid any life long problems.

Title: Ban Highly Processed Foods Content: I believe Pro has fallen well short of justifying a ban on "highly processed foods". The arguments put forth indicating that these foods are unhealthy were anemic at best. None of the chemicals Pro mentioned behaved like, say, cyanide. These are more of the "consume it everyday for years and MAYBE there will be health concern. " Even then, the evidence is correctional at best. Everyone eventually dies. The question is the expediency. Should foods contain labels that indicate the ingredients used? Yes. Should foods that contain chemicals that are lethal from short term exposure be banned? Absolutely. Should ingredients that have weak or non-existent empirical links to adverse health conditions be banned? Obviously not. We don't restrict freedom without a really good reason. Pro has NOT come near a good reason. Thank you.

Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: 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.

Title: Lift soda ban from schools! Content: I think schools should lift bans on sodas and sugary drinks because some children can contain themselves after a Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, PowerAde, and Sprite. The only drinks that should be banned are energy drinks like Red Bull, Monster, MIO ENERGY, etc. because they give people lots of energy and Mountain Dew which contains Yellow 5 which increases behavior issues.

Title: Privatization of Water Does more Harm Than Good Content: If we're making up arbitrary semantic observations, then yes I would agree that your argument both initially and to this point has been left lower than 5000 characters. That mattering in any sense of the word is not something I would agree. It's really about the importance of Privatization of Water" and it doing more harm than good. I have prepared points on both how it exists today and why, would you like to rebuttal or should I continue making points to support my argument? Because it won't be possible for me to refute arguments you haven't made yet. And to be clear" the topic worth debating is the debate topic.

Title: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine Content: Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world’s major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere.