Dihydrogen Monoxide can be harmful.

Sweet, lets go line by line on your arguments. I challenged you to give me a way in which water can be harmful. You have failed and I will show you how. "Here are three examples that I gave in my first argument. hey are all things that DMHO can do, and they are not because of "human application."" "Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage." >>This is very much human application. The human has to touch the ice in order for it cause tissue damage, and for a long time at that. Last time I checked ice doesn't run around and attack people. It is indeed people touching ice. If there was a warning sign for this it would say "touching the ice can be harmful" not "if the ice attacks you it can be harmful". You are debating whether water can be harmful, not whether being stupid can be harmful. This is human stupidity, nothing to do with ice. "Contributes to soil erosion. " >>Soil erosion = natural. Not harmful. It happens everyday everywhere. Soil eroding doesn't actually cause harm. Someone building their house on a place where soil is eroding could cause harm but this is once again human application. Warning sign, "Don't build your house on cliff, this could be harmful." "Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. " >>Once again a natural phenomenon and once again even if someone thinks its harmful it is human application. "Don't leave your bike in the rain" ever heard someone say that before? "Here is where you are wrong. Water CAN be dangerous. If you drink too much of it, you can vomit. If you inhale even a small amount of water, you can die. DMHO in a gaseous form can cause severe burns. I think that a severe burn can count as an instance where DMHO can be harmful!!!" >> Once again this is human application. Drinking to much water can be dangerous. Its not the water that is dangerous it is you drinking the water that is dangerous. Warning label, "drinking to much water is dangerous" not "caution: water may attempt to make you drink to much of it". Notice the difference between the subjects in those sentences. Onto your second one you say inhaling water. Same argument, its you inhaling the water that is dangerous, the water itself poses no threat to you. Its what you do with the water. Water in gaseous forms can cause severe burns.... same, don't attempt to stick your hand over the boiling water pot. Onto your definition for can: "to be able to do, make, or accomplish" Water itself is not able to do anything. It doesn't posses will, or ability. Something must manipulate water to do something. Water on its own cannot do anything. "As I have shown, DMHO able to cause harm, it can accomplish harm, and it can be harmful. DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL!!! SEVERE BURNS, DEATH DUE TO ACCIDENTAL INHALATION, SEVERE TISSUE DAMAGE, THERE ARE ONLY SOME WAYS WHERE DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL. THANK YOU" >>All ways that we can be harmful to ourselves. All ways that humans can be dangerous to themselves. "P.S. I don't know if you knew this, but on January 12, 2007, a woman died from drinking too much water. She had taken part in a water drinking contest hosted by a local radio station, and she drank about 2 gallons of water. Too much water can dilute your blood stream , and lower your electrolyte levels in your blood. This excess water can seep into your cells, causing them to bulge. If this happens in your brain, you can experience headaches and impaired breathing. Also, your kidneys can gat damaged from trying to flush out all the water. For more information go to http://drbenkim.com...; >>You only go to prove my point.... "Woman died from drinking too much water" not "Water makes woman drink it thereby killing her". This is once again human application of stupidity. It was the woman drinking to much water that lead to her death. It was her over-drinking that was dangerous in this situation not the water itself. You leave my last argument standing thus without refutation I am going to repost so that everyone understands why your logic is wrong. "Thus my contention. In every single example that my opponent gave, if water had anything to do with the damage, it was not the water doing the damage but rather human application of the water. Water in itself cannot be dangerous, humans must always manipulate water in some way to make it dangerous. Under my opponents idea of what is dangerous we can assume everything to be dangerous. This destroys the idea of the word dangerous, as if everything is potentially dangerous, there is no point labeling anything dangerous. For example a pencil can be used to stab someone however it was not the pencil that was dangerous in said situation but rather the person stabbing people with it." And finally, I would appreciate if everyone voted on who did the better debating/convincing even though I realize that probably won't really happen. If anybody has an application of water in which the water is actually being dangerous I would like to hear it in the comment section. Just please don't vote on it as it is your own argument and not my opponents. Thank you.