The Five-Second Rule is Real

I apologize if any of this seems disjointed, the debate setup does not call for rebuttals until next round; I am therefore abstaining from reading con’s case until then. To open I shall first provide the requested dictionary definitions, then I shall lay out a two tiered argument based on the most likely interpretations. Definitions: From UrbanDictionary.com… The Five Second Rule’s most approved definition (85.5% like it) is “A simple rule stating that food dropped on the ground is still perfectly edible if it is picked up in five seconds. Ingeniously created by guys for the sole purpose of reducing wasted food and allowing a person that second chance they needed to enjoy their food” [1]. The 5 Second Rule is “An unwritten law dictating that if a food or other consumable item is dropped onto the floor, it may be picked up up and eaten within five seconds” [2]. From Merriam-Webster.com (my preferred dictionary, which lacked the Five Second Rule)… Rule is “a prescribed guide for conduct or action,” or “an accepted procedure, custom, or habit” [3]. Real is “important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way,” however as that definition is overly favorable it may be best to look at the origin of the word “Middle English, real, relating to things (in law) … First Known Use: 14th century” [4]. Arguments: The Five Second Rule is Real… If something is real, has nothing to do with if people should follow it. Slavery was very real, people should not have owned slaves, yet still did (and continue to in many parts of the world). Honey Boo Boo is real, so are Child Protective Services; yet the latter is shown to be lacking by the former, yet this ineffectiveness does not lead to the conclusion of one not being real. Pertaining to the Five Second Rule, it is a popular tradition among both men and women, surprisingly similar to the Three Second and Ten Second rules (all are likely variants from one origin, which the chief of the division of infectious diseases at Weill Cornell Medical College Dr. Roy M. Gulick, states “the five-second rule probably should become the zero-second rule,” [5]). The rule is intelligently designed to decrease the level of exposure to harmful bacteria, much like how milk can be transported home unrefrigerated with no harmful effects, whereas left in the car overnight it is no longer safe. Of course the degree to which it is followed, closely relates to the desirability of the food in question; furthered weighted against the cleanliness of the surface touched. There are no known cases of it being employed in a bathroom, or of Jell-O being slurped up until five seconds has been reached. In 2003 the nutrition department at the University of Illinois conducted a Nobel Prize winning study. Taking swabs of the floors in the lab, hall, dorms, and even the cafeteria; they found very few microorganisms, then repeated it to the same result and concluded “the floors were so clean, from a microbiological point of view, because floors are dry, and most pathogens like salmonella, listeria, or E. coli can't survive without moisture.” Finally to get the desired results, they intentionally covered tiles in large amounts of E. coli which had some transference [6]. The study strongly implies a normal dry floor is safe, however someone can intentionally transfer E. coli; but if someone is trying to poison you, I have a hard time imagining them targeting the floor instead of the food directly. However a 2007 Connecticut College study looked closely at the non-manipulated results, then conducted a more realistic study. Dropping a dry food and a moist food in various dining locations around campus, it was concluded “no bacteria were present on the foods that had remained on the floor for five, ten, or thirty seconds” [5], the 300 seconds being another matter. These findings support the initial (pre lab introduced E. coli) conclusion of the 2003 study. The Five Second Rule is Valid:As a bonus to amend to the above, the rule can be proven to be valid (as opposed to merely real) in additional ways. In medicine the Hygiene Hypothesis basically states that too little germ exposure makes our immune system weak, thus we should occasionally embrace low level exposure. A recent study gave weight to this at least in children, connecting common bacterial species to healthy immune response and less allergies later in life [7]. This is not to say eat off the bathroom floor, merely that occasional small doses of household germs (such as from dropped food which was recovered quickly) may actually be beneficial. Sources (1-4 being definitions, thus of little to no value in voting): [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [2] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://www.realclearscience.com... [6, broken by DDO auto formatting. To view simply add the “-” back onto the end] http://www.webmd.com...- [7] http://brazenmom.com...