Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.

Thanks. My opponent agrees that all substances are poisonous but then suggests that we only commonly refer to substances as "poisonous" if a small dose kills you. 1 ppm is not a dosage at all but a safe level to add the substance to water. "The currently accepted estimate for the minimum lethal dose of fluoride is 5 mg/kg (i.e. 5 milligrams of fluoride for each kilogram of bodyweight)." http://www.fluoridealert.org.... So 250 mg could possibly kill a 50 kilogram (110 lb) adolescent. Assuming 1 ppm this youngster would have to drink 250 litres (by my maths) of fluoridated water to ingest a fatal dose of fluoride. As water itself can be lethal at a dose of under 10 litres (as proved by my water-intoxication sources in the first round) and no one is calling water poisonous, it is ludicrous to suggest that fluoridated water is "poisonous" as defined by my opponent. My Colgate does indeed contain Fluoride, so I guess UK government is a little less strict on these warnings than US. This though is the same kind of warning as the "choking hazard" you find on plastic packaging. If used inappropriately toothpaste could be harmful, kids should certainly not eat it as candy (it's way too expensive for one thing) but neither should they eat vitamin supplements as sweets. My opponent's definition for propaganda is not from a recognised dictionary, but is again from an anti-fluoridation website. If my opponent starts to use sources other than Wikipedia and anti-fluoride propaganda, then I may begin to respond to the points they raise. (If there's space!) My opponent asks "if it is worth it to ingest poison in order to possibly prevent cavities." I have shown that my opponent's use of the word poison is unjustified here. My point was that while lack of fluoride does not lead to tooth decay, the addition of it certainly does protect against tooth decay, my opponent seems unwilling to address this point directly, he should either refute it or concede it as fact. Pro asks if I agree with this statement: ""The evidence is clear that people don't need to CONSUME fluoride to reap its benefits: They just need the powerful agent to come into contact with their teeth." My opponent seems here to be agreeing that people "need" fluoride to "come into contact with their teeth" to have healthy teeth which pretty much negates most of his other points. While I can see that a mouthwash would be effective, it is less so than applying direct to the teeth by brushing and harder to enforce as well. Many low-income families can't afford toothpaste and brushes, let alone mouthwash, plus you try getting a five-year old to rinse effectively with mouthwash, it's not easy in my experience! "It is obvious that adding fluoride to water is being done by people who are on the government's payroll." Agreed. I have already discussed the biased nature of my opponent's sources. Please compare them with independent journalistic and recognised scientific sources to see the disparity. The "layman's guide" in the first source confuses the issue greatly by spending the first few pages discussing the dangers of separate compounds such as hydrofluoric acid. The second source claims: "Respected Medical Professionals and Scientists are warning of long-term health consequences." just below this there is a link to a report by a thirteen year-old student. Hardly a respected professional opinion. The specific quote in question: "Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount." is not from the ADA. The RDA is from the ADA (if that makes sense) but the 300% figure is not sourced. My opponent still needs to address several points I made in the previous round but I don't have the space to make any new ones. Main point: Fluoride aids dental health and helps prevent tooth decay. Thanks. Con.