Question: Should bottled water be banned?

Bottled water should be banned 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)

Bottled water should be banned 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.

Bottled water should be banned Bottled water should be banned!

Bottled water should be banned 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....

Bottled water should be banned Extend arguments. (I really don't know what else to add without repeating the same thing over and over again.

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

Bottled water should be banned 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

Water quality 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.

Bottled water should be banned 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.

Bottled water should be banned i meant bottled water is a scam

Bottled water should be banned 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.

Bottled water should be banned 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

Bottled water should be banned 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. .. .

Bottled water should be banned 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)

Bottled water should be banned 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

Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine 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.

Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine 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.

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

Its harmful to the environment 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.

plastic bottles should be banned 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!

Its harmful to the environment You end up with a bottle that needs to be recycled and often isn’t 85% of plastic water bottles become garbage. The bottling companies find it easier and more profitable to let you throw the water containers away and buy a new one each time. About 2 million of them are thrown away every hour. Most bottles sold are actually small sized bottles, increasing the wastage

Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water 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 :/

Bottled water is harmful 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...

Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water We actually need some healthy water where taps can not provide that.

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) 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...

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) 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.

Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water 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.

It is time to stop buying bottled water Its harmful to the environment

It is time to stop buying bottled water Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine

Bottled water is harmful Clearly me and my opponent have a difference of opinion and for this reason I will end this debate.

It is time to stop buying bottled water Water quality

Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence. Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it. Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide: Humans are made up mostly of it. The earth's surface is made up mostly of it. It can be used as a coolant. All plant and animal life requires it to live. It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages. It is what we clean ourselves with. It's fun and good exercise to swim in it. Yes, water can do many harmful things. Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic. 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. Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough. Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon. The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban. The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors. So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that. Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet. Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems). And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water. Your move.

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

It is time to stop buying bottled water Its no better for you.

Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway 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.

It is time to stop buying bottled water Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water

People believe the marketing hype too much 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.

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) 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.

Bottled water is harmful 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...]

It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing 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.

Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water 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...

Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned 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.

Bottled water is harmful 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.

Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles 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!

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) "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.

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) There is no argument for this, stop trolling or I will get my friends to vote for me.

Which water is the best water 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.

It quite simply can taste better. 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.

Bottled water is harmful Round 1 is accept Rounds 2&3 are arguments and and rebuttals Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions

Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water 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

It quite simply can taste better. 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.

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) 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...

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) I have blocked you for derailing a serious debate. The admin/moderator of this site has said that making your friends vote for you just because they are your friends is a conduct violation. You know what violating site rules means, right? My opponent has refused to argue about anything or make a legitimate case like I did. This is the second time in a row this has happened to me, the last one washttp://www.debate.org...Somebody must be making multiple accounts to prevent me from doing a legitimate debate and therefore dragging down my ELO.

Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water 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...

Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water 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

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) 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.

Which water is the best water 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.

Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles You can't say use aluminium, you have chosen to use glass to replace plastic bottles. Cans and bottles are nearly same. Plastic can be recycled and reused, glass once broken isn't reusable. Plastic is more durable than glass. Tap water needs to be boiled in certain areas to be drinkable, which would increase fuel consumption. Plus, plastic bottles can't be used as a weapon, but glass bottles can shed blood. Glass can reflect light and cause distraction, plastic can't.

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) 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...

Bottled Water is better than Tap Water 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...

It is time to stop buying bottled water Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water

It is time to stop buying bottled water People believe the marketing hype too much

Which water is the best water My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.

<GY> Water should be Privatized To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society. 1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard. 2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle. 3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need. Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.

It is time to stop buying bottled water It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing

Its no better for you. The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are "mineral" or "spring" waters. For a water to possess the name of "mineral" or "spring" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.

NO,need to ban just reduce the use of plastic 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.

Bottled Water is better than Tap Water 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)

<GY> Water should be Privatized Before going on to anything else, I will clarify some of the terms stated in the topic. The setting should be limited to democratic countries where the capitalistic distribution is possible, and 'privatized' as letting the distribution and sales of water be responsible to entrepreneurs and companies. In this debate we have to interpret whether water privatization's advantages out weigh the disadvantages, and I say no. This issue has been brought up because some think that a product managed by the private companies and the market increases quality and efficiency. This can be true in some cases of the products, but let me prove throughout this debate why 'water' is exclusive and should be provided by the government. First, let's think about the nature of water. Water is the resource that directly affects human life. Access to potable water is included in the UN human rights charter as well. Because water is related to the rights to life, it should not be regarded as a product, but rather a basic, fundamental human rights service that should be provided to everybody. And sources with qualities like these should be provided by the government. Other sources related to rights of citizens such as basic education, access to electricity and protection of the citizens are all provided by the government, not in the company's hands. The government should be responsible in providing the citizens the basic rights. Second, I will compare the nature of the private companies and government, and state why the government does a better job in providing water citizens. We should keep in mind that the aims of the companies are maximizing profits, not providing water to citizens. In these cases, citizens are not seen as citizens that deserve rights, but rather seen as customers providing profit to the company. And when they don't, their water supplies will be cut. It is true that market economy encourages competition and targets lower price and best quality. However, the company will need to suffer a loss in order to acheive this. And when this happens, the company will turn to making a profit at an expense of either increasing the price or lowering the quality. It is very likely that companis are likely to increase the price of water aiming for profit, because they know it is a life source and people would have to purchase it anyway. In contrast, government targets providing the waters to everyone. Their main goal is to provide their citizens what they need. By this goal, at least the distribution is made. Even if it is underpriced, the citizens get to encounter a source of water. Let's take a look at some of the examples of the countries where the water was privatized and suffered of negative results. In a case of England, where there are sixteen different water companies, even though the price went down from the initial cost, their prices are still five to ten times higher that that of countries where water is provided by the government. Plus, their tariffs increased by 46%. In Tanzania, where it is a developing country, the bills went up for the users. And people turned into unsafe water resources rather than paying the increased bills. These were examples of some of the harms that came with the privatization of water. Finally, let me talk about the environmental harms that can come with the privatization of water. The exploitation and depletion of resources can come. The companies are too much interested in making profits to care about how much resource is actually 'left' to use. Even if there were lack of resources, it wouldn't really matter because little supply can be a good reason for higher demands and increased prices. This might cause the water to be gone, and also affect the plans on various projects in water, such as hydroelectric power or projects in canals. Because water is so exclusive and necessary for life and all citizens, it should be provided by the government and not be privatized.

It is time to stop buying bottled water It quite simply can taste better.

Resolved: water ought to be valued as a human right rather than a commodity As Americans, we should be able to know the difference between those who are are are not less fortunate. For instance, people who have a good-standing GDP Per-Capita should have to pay for a bottle of purified water, while said money should go to giving water to someone who has no job, or is homeless. If we were to sell water to those who can afford it, and split the earnings by giving water to the needy, we can use the other part of the money to do a multitude of things; such as manufacturing new jobs for said needy. Tell me this: if we were to just hand out water to every person out there, regardless of finances, we would end up losing quite a large amount of money in the process. As I've stated, the less-fortunate should get their water for free, but those who aren't need to pay for their water, as it seems only fair.

Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway 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.

Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles 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

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) I have PM'ed the admin, and he said that this counts as a serious debate, and that derailing serious debates is a conduct violation. This was not intended to be a troll debate in the first place. Many debaters have already done serious debates on this topic. You are the one who is trolling and derailing it, according to the Admin.

Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned 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.

<GY> Water should be Privatized I first express my thanks for the arguments, and let me proceed to a final round :) Let me first begin by refuting some of the statements; 1) Let me first clarify and inform that distribution of water is not limited to 'drinking water'or , but rather a distribution to homes through pipes such as water used for bath, dish-washing, toilets, and many other purposes. Therefore, once again water is more than just 'drinking' or 'bottled water' but rather a supply for many tasks we need to do in life. 2) Yes, there are worldwide systems and organizations, but they are insufficient to provide every people with water supplies. If those organizations were so great and so effective, how can the nations and people suffering from unapproachable water be existent? I believe that domestic governmental effort through making the water public works much better and efficient. The failures of water privatization is mentioned in my first round's arguments through the examples Great Britain(developed country), and Tanzania(developing country). Let me provide you with some of the successes that public water supply systems have made; Germany has a public system with very low distribution losses; 100% of the urban areas have access while 97% of the rural areas are granted of access. For both urban and rural areas, over 90% has the high sanitation rate. In Denmark, 100% of the population gets water supplies, with more than 87% of high sanitation rate. For the example of a developing country, we have Costa Rica - nearly 90% or the rural areas are granted access, and with almost all of the urban areas getting the supply as well. These data proves that public water systems are certainly more efficient in providing the public with water with good quality and efficiency. 3) My opponent has stated 'there are places where you can get free water'. However, he/she did not state such specific places, and it is not proved. And EVEN IF there were to be places with free water, still people would have to carry the water they need all the way home - which is very inefficient compared to the water pipe systems. 4) "people who don't work or don't go out into the world and get a job should not get water" ; means that if one does not have money or a job, they should not be granted the access to water. However, let's keep in mind that no money and no job is caused from lack of efforts. So what about people that are born in adverse conditions? If they have money, does that mean their water supplies, a vital source, has to be cut? A nation and a government should be ready to provide its people, at least a VERY BASIC LIFE SOURCE, instead of abandoning them. 5) There are certain RIGHTS that are granted to people regardless of their jobs or status in money- such as rights to life, freedom of speech, rights to be protected, rights to vote, and so on. And water is one of those sources that should be granted and be provided by the government. Today, I have proved to you that water should NOT be privatized through suggesting; 1) Explaining the nature and qualities of water being a necessary life source and why it should be provided by the government, 2) Explain the Nature of the private companies and how their preference on profits over people can cause harm, plus the comparison with the public water systems which were successful, 3) Possible environmental harms that can come with privatizing water Plus I believe I have rebutted my opponent successfully. However, I haven't really seen a direct rebuttal to theses arguments from my opponent. Plus, what I have seen in the arguments of my opponents were vague. 1) My opponent firstly misunderstood the privatization of water - when it should have been considering the supply of overall water, my opponent has only considered 'bottled water' which was a very limited topic. 2) He/she was also irresponsible in providing people with fair and equal source of water- and when I pointed out the responsibilities of the government and necessity of water supply, I haven't heard the response to that. 3) 'Worldwide systems and organizations of water' or 'free sources' of water were what my opponent suggested. However, they were not specified. Plus, getting water supplies to everybody from those water systems are very impractical - but my opponent as ignored these factors. 4) I haven't seen any reason from my opponent on WHY companies are more efficient or better in providing people with water sources, or why companies can manage the water systems better without harming the environment. 5) Not just these reasons, but I haven't seen a solid argument or a reasoning in my opponent's arguments, and therefore, I do not exactly know what possible solutions or suggestions that were suggested by my opponent. He/she was merely irresponsible, and while he/she tried to tackle my arguments, because they were vague and illogical, they do not stand.(please refer to my rebuttals) Water, once a gain, is a source that is directly related to the rights of life. And because people should be granted these rights, it should be the government who should be managing the system. My reasons have been proved throughout this debate, and if you care for the people and fair distribution of water, please vote for me! We all want water to come out from our sinks, toilets, and showers. :)

Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned First of all let me say how happy I am to have an opponent with a sense of humor. I had hoped to have a somewhat relaxed and fun debate, and he has not let me down. Also I apologize for my tardiness. Work has been brutal lately. Onward then: I am glad to hear my opponent concedes the ignorance of people, as this fact is paramount to my case. There has been insufficient scientific research as of yet to conclusively prove that mogwai do not exist. To dismiss their plight, and the plight of all towns everywhere that could so easily be decimated by uncontrolled mogwai propagation is absolute neglect. 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. ]. My opponent here fails to offer any reason why this matters. Life requires DHMO, this does not necessarily mean that this is a good thing. I offer, there would be no significant harm to the universe were all life on Earth to cease immediately, and there would in fact, be the potential for some benefit to this particular portion of the Universe. I offer into consideration- humans cause harm to the environment, other living species, and the atmosphere. Recalling that my opponant conceded the ignorance of people, it seems unlikely that we will ever provide the benifit from our lives we can provide by our extinction. Remove all life now and it MAY be possible for some life to begin again at a later time that would be less destructive. My opponent claims that we must keep this chemical Dehydrogen Monoxide for no other reason that to keep the obviously detrimental life upon this earth, without offering any reasoning as to why this would be a good thing. I propose it would in fact be a neutral thing at worst and a bad thing at best. Again, my opponent has simply stated, "irrelevant" and "We cannot ban rain, it is impossible. " This is irrelevant. As I have shown, there would be long term benefits to just such a ban, as such the resolution is upheld. "Banning the use of water is not ever done. " This does not mean it should not be. In fact high ranking officials have made the attempt, only to be shot down by special interest groups that stood to gain significant advantages with the distribution of DHMO. In fact in 1998 "A member of the Australian Parliament announced a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide internationally. " . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Obviously he was blocked from success. "Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned. " NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial: DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches) DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture. "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. " It could as easily mean "some people" as it could "all people" the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires. "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. " Irrelevant. The use of the word better quantifies the statement, making it inherently different from the actual topic of THIS debate. My opponent has made the claim that the banning of water is bad, without showing why this is so. He claims that it necessary for life without showing how that is beneficial. He has outright tossed out my defense of mogwai, showing a callous disregard for the lives of countless poor souls seeking only to enjoy a rare holiday free from strife and gremlins, and he shows no concern at all, ignoring my call to protect, all witches who may find significant pain upon contact with DHMO. I have shown: 1. mogwai should never be introduced to DHMO 2. Witches, particularly of the western variety practicing a form of of their craft known as wicked, would certainly benefit from just such a ban 3. There are some long term environmental benefits to this ban.

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) 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?

Bottled Water is better than Tap Water 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.

NO,need to ban just reduce the use of plastic Its plastic bags that are bad. not any plastic.

Bottled water is harmful That was an interesting concession. Haven't seen that before. As someone pointed out in the comments, if you thought you were going to get someone who agreed with you then why'd you start a debate? Anyway I had fun, and at least you stuck around to the end instead of bailing! Thanks for the debate, best of luck at the polls and in your future debates. -InnovativeEphemera

Water should not be privatized P1: The right to dignity is inviolable The right to dignity (aka the idea that people, by virtue of their humanity, have an innate right to be valued, respected, and receive ethical treatment from others) is the basis upon which all human rights extend. This is because human rights, by nature, aim to allow people to access a certain quality of life and protect that ability (e.g. you have the right to freedom of thought because being able to express yourself is critical to achieving happiness, and you also have the right to not be arbitrarily detained because that would impede upon your ability to pursue that quality of life). If people are not treated with dignity, then it is impossible for them to ever attain that quality of life. This is because they will not be made to feel valuable as human beings (have a lack of self-worth) and they will be unable to connect meaningfully with others in society. P2: Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living I would argue that to achieve human dignity, certain key aspects of what it means to be a person need to be provided (assuming the person cannot provide these for himself/herself). This is because people who cannot access these cannot truly access the basic prerequisites for humanity. The two fundamental aspects of all human life are:1) Shelter—every person needs shelter from the environment, whether this is through clothes, a tent, house, etc.2) Resources that satisfy biological needs—this includes things like clean air, water, and food because no one can live without theseP3: Privatization of water violates dignity As you can see, access to clean water is listed underneath resources that satisfy biological needs (for obvious reasons). By privatizing water, water becomes a commodity just like any other: a resource that can be bought and sold. As a result, water will inevitably become something that people can either afford or cannot afford and those who cannot afford it will lose access to it. I think this is a clear violation of people’s inherent right to be able to access vital resources. Privatizing water means that the fact that you are a human being does not entitle you to what is needed to sustain your life. Rather, it is the money you have available that will determine whether or not you can get what everyone requires. Your ability to be able to sustain yourself and live a life should not be based on such an arbitrary, man-made construct such as money or wealth, but should be based on your nature as a human being. P4: Water will become a luxury resource, leading to serious practical harms Large corporations, due to the capital and resources available to them, are the most likely group to come to dominate the water market if it is allowed to be privatized. Corporations are held accountable to share holders instead of to the public. What this means is that they will act to please shareholders rather than the public. More often than not, this means that corporations are profit driven (since, among other pretty clear reasons, profits please shareholders). Water, which has already been established as something that is absolutely vital, will, therefore, have nearly unlimited demand, though only a finite supply. Naturally, corporations will exploit this and charge more than necessary (though not exorbitant amounts and make the mistake Martin Shkreli did) and transform water into a luxury resource (which it should not be). As with any luxury resource, isolated locations will be unable to access water. This is because there is no reason for a corporation that owns water to invest tons of money into developing distribution chains and infrastructure in poorer, rural towns where there are fewer consumers and operation costs are higher when that money could instead be invested into streamlining water distribution chains in major cities where there are tons of consumers with money to spend. This applies not only to more rural locations, but also to poorer nations. Given globalization and the current trend of massive multinational corporations that exert huge influence over the globe, third world nations that are already poor will end up being exploited for the benefit of first world nations. Water will inevitably be shipped from poor nations to richer nations because that’s where the money is and that’s how corporations will be able to maximize profits. So not only will poorer people as a whole be the most impacted by privatization of water (since they will be the least able to pay), but nations as a whole will be held down. All in all, I have shown that there is a clear principle that should not be violated. Additionally, I have highlighted numerous practical harms to people who live in isolated or poorer locations.

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) 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.

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) ik you were about to ask me this, i was to tell you this is a troll question.

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

plastic bottles should be banned Okay. So, the way I see it, you're saying that we should get rid of plastics because there is some sort of new material. But, if we were to ban all plastic bottles, or plastics overall, then where would we put the plastic? Its not like we have huge landfills laying around where we can dump the billions of pounds of plastic. So, where would we put the plastic? Also, what about the plastic currently in circulation? How would we deal with that plastic? So we are killing animals and destroying the environment, and I am admittedly against this as well. But face it: if we're going to eliminate all the plastic, we have to consider the cost, as well as where it would be relocated to. I look forward to seeing your response!

Soda should be banned 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!

This House would monetize water 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

Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned It consumes our very soul. It's almost as if we need the stuff live. Well, I think the benefits outweigh the harms on this one. While it can lead to Acid Rain, deadly natural disasters, and the oxidation of metal, I think I like the substance.

Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) This was not a troll debate in the first place. Thanks for wasting my time.

Banning alcohol harms the economy. It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers. Also it is true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.

Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded 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!

Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) "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.

Resolved: water ought to be valued as a human right rather than a commodity For the other countries such as India and Iraq, that's yet another thing we could use our earned finances on from selling water to the more fortunate. If people paid a simple price, say one dollar, for a bottle of water, imagine what possibilities could come from the earnings of said water. Just consider my intentions. May the best man win, my friend.

Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles These sources say that USA uses 1500 plastic bottles on average per second, and in 2010, 42.6 billion plastic bottles were produced. Glass bottles would be too costly and can't replace plastic. Many people will die of dehyration because of your stupid idea. Increase the character limit!http://www.treehugger.com...http://www.container-recycling.org...;

Ban plastic bags Plastic bags are an easy, disposable way to transport goods bought from the market. Indeed, they can harm the environment, but proper disposal of these bags will solve that problem. The only problem here is that some people are too lazy or uncaring to throw away bags, and therefore bags end up everywhere. Instead of banning plastic bags, we should instead find a better way to dispose of them or better educate people or have stricter enforcement on littering laws. If the government were to ban plastic bags, that would have 2 effects (besides banning the plastic bags): 1 That would mean that we trust the government with more power, which gives the government greater abilities to the extent where they may decide that we shouldn't have shopping carts, have bags at all, etc. This is also a liberal action. Giving the government more power is the worst thing you could possibly do. 2 This makes a huge dent in the economy. Think about the people who make the plastic bags. Think about the people who's job is to bag goods in the bags. It would make businesses make more durable bags, which in the long run, increases prices, since the durable bags cost more. Long story short, it would kill jobs, possibly kill profit, and raise overall prices. Remember that load of food you bought at Kroger? The price for that food could be increased, even doubled if plastic bags were banned. So to sum it all up, plastic bags would take away jobs, take away profit, increase prices, and give the government more power. A few alternate solutions include better educating people to dispose of bags properly, find new ways to dispose of them, and/or making prisons do more service hours to clean up the bags and other wastes.

Causes expense to consumers in a time of recession Instead of letting people pay for what they buy, the banning of plastic bags in reality will lead to people having to pay to carry their purchases out of the store. Plastic bags are cheap to produce so supermarkets are willing to give them out for free. To ban them would mean that supermarkets would charge for the more costly forms of carrier bags. This is putting an additional financial strain on families who do large grocery shopping trips. In a time of a recession, surely the policy of banning plastic bags should be left aside.

California should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks. Now I would like to go on to my own points. 1. American"s are becoming obese. -"About 12 million (16.9%) of U. S. children ages 2 to 19 are obese. -Nearly one in three (31.7%) U. S. children (23,500,000) ages 2 to 19 are overweight or obese. -Over one-third (33.7%) of U. S. adults are obese (nearly 75 million adults). " American Heart Association "A huge, decades-long study involving more than 33,000 Americans has yielded the first clear proof that drinking sugary beverages interacts with genes that affect weight, amplifying a person's risk of obesity beyond what it would be from heredity alone. This means that such drinks are especially harmful to people with genes that predispose them to weight gain. And most of us have at least some of these genes. Collectively, the results strongly suggest that sugary drinks cause people to pack on the pounds, independent of other unhealthy behavior such as overeating and getting too little exercise, scientists say. " Huffingtonpost 2. Sugary Drinks lead to health problems. Dr Hans-Peter Kubis, who led the research at Bangor University, said: "Our results give a stark warning against regularly drinking sugar-sweetened drinks. " He added: "Not only can regular sugar intake acutely change our body metabolism; in fact it seems that our muscles are able to sense the sugars and make our metabolism more inefficient, not only in the present but in the future as well. "This will lead a reduced ability to burn fat and to fat gain. Moreover, it will make it more difficult for our body to cope with rises in blood sugar. " -"The point about sodas is they are an easy target for public health intervention," said Marion Nestle, a nutritionist, New York University professor and influential author of "What to Eat. " "All they are is sugar and calories. There's no redeeming feature. The last thing Americans need is extra calories. "Nor, soda's opponents add, do Americans need increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay and other problems. "People need to step back and look at their health," said Michelle Dudash, a Scottsdale, Ariz. -based registered dietitian, author and nutritionist. "If you're overweight, cut back on the soda. "If you have weak tooth enamel, cut back on the soda. If you have a risk of heart disease, cut back on the soda. " "According to a new study, men who drink one sugar-sweetened beverage daily have a 20 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease than men who drink none. Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health tracked nearly 43,000 participants in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male dentists, pharmacists, physicians, veterinarians and other health professionals ages 40 to 75, almost all of whom were of European descent. For 22 years, the men filled out surveys about their diets and other health habits. The researchers also collected blood samples from more than 18,000 men who were demographically similar to those in the survey. The results, published today in the American Heart Association's journal, Circulation, found that drinking 12 ounces of regular soda, fruit drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages daily was associated with a higher risk of heart disease, even after taking into account other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use and a family history of heart disease. " ABC news 3. Healthy alternatives are available. -"Infused Water " Which tasted like soda but really is just water with vegetables like cucumbers added - Iced Tea - an easy way to control the terms of your tea: caffeinated varieties like black, green and white tea make nice, strong iced teas -- but herbal options also abound for those of you who care to stay caffeine-free. - Seltzer+Juice - NYU nutritionist and HuffPost Healthy Living contributor Lisa Young recommends adding a splash of juice to plain seltzer for a jazzed up treat. "It beats sugar in sodas! " she told The Huffington Post -Iced Coffee - For those who get a kick from caffeine, flavored water just can't beat a Diet Coke. That's where iced coffee comes in: highly adaptable (add or skip the sugar! use dairy milk or a substitute like almond! ), relatively inexpensive and with a strong, almost caramel-like flavor, a cold, eye-popping coffee can serve as a lower sugar alternative to your favorite soda. -Fresh Juice - Unlike bottled varieties, freshly juiced fruits and vegetables have no added sugar. By selecting the ingredients, you can also control sugar portions by tempering sweet fruits like mangoes, grapes and melons with low-sugar, high-fiber fare such as kale, celery and lettuce. " Huffingtonpost 4. It"s an expense that people don"t need to spend. -It"s just paying money for sugary water. -"It costs association's members about $600,000 in labeling and other expenses for bottles, Vice President Mike Redman said in court papers. Reconfiguring "16-ounce" cups that are actually made slightly bigger, to leave room at the top, is expected to take cup manufacturers three months to a year and cost them anywhere from more than $100,000 to several millions of dollars, Foodservice Packaging Institute President Lynn Dyer said in court documents. " - "Sustain have estimated that the NHS is forking out a whopping 6 billion Euros each year treating diet-related illnesses. -If we are going to continue to consume products that we know are bad for our health why shouldn't we be contributing more toward the eventual cost of treating our self-imposed health issues? Yes, I know we all pay National Insurance, but the NHS is buckling under the ever-increasing demand for healthcare and facing an annual 10billion Euro shortfall. " Yahoo Finance in UK and Ireland -This is money that we could spend saving lives, helping improve our children"s education, and helping the environment -Because of these reasons, I strongly urge a proposition ballet. Thank you and for all these reasons, I will strongly urge a proposition ballet.

Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water 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.

It is time to stop buying bottled water They don't leak into my bag at college