Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water should be prohibited from sale.
I hope we can see the other person's viewpoint without any hindrances. No, it shouldn't be banned; that would be excessive government intervention. - I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that it's "too much government." By prohibiting bottled water, the government would only be involved in the act of banning and enforcing the ban. However, once the ban is in place, the government wouldn't have much to do with bottled water anymore. I'm tired of hearing people say, "I don't like this, let's ban it." - I'm advocating for the prohibition of bottled water because people seem unaware of the detrimental impact it has on our lives and society. Even if they are aware, they don't take significant action to mitigate or prevent the adverse effects. You don't have to ban plastic bottles, but using materials that can decompose would be much better. As a progressive, I believe that cash rewards for recycling could help alleviate poverty and end environmental pollution. - Could you please provide more details on how cash rewards could address poverty and environmental issues? Also, if possible, please provide evidence of where this approach has been successful. Encouraging positive behavior is more effective than penalizing negative actions. - You are correct in saying that rewarding good behavior is more effective, but good behavior must be demonstrated to be rewarded. In this context, people are not exhibiting good behavior by carelessly discarding water bottles. While not everyone does this, the problem still exists. Instead of viewing the ban on bottled water as a "punishment," consider it an opportunity for people to move away from the misconception that bottled water is superior to tap water, when the opposite is true. As I mentioned earlier, tap water is more affordable, healthier, and more efficient to use. My opponent did not effectively counter my points from the initial round.

Sorry to get back so late as i am a busy man these days with training. I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like?", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. 1. I never said the F.D.A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F.D.A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. 2. My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper."you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine." I know many people who have dipped both flavored and non flavored dip, and have never dipped again, although the nicotine was in their system. Also the guy who left the first comment on this debate can agree too. 3. My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. This is common sense. All about morality bub. 4. My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. He tried quoting me and failed at that, but, 10 out of 10 people i see dip. My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. 5. My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. Bub. First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip

Since when did a ban on the SALE of cigarettes affect the rights to economic ownership? It is illegal to sell plutonium to non-professionals. Should we make it legal to sell because of the economic ownership principle?

First of all global warming is a whole different can of worms. I happen not to believe in global warming. From what I know of this "global warming" smoking is not even close to a cause of global warming. The choice to or not to smoke should be based on each person in this country. I for one being a former Marine picked up smoking in Iraq, quit when I left, picked it up in Afghanistan and quit shortly after again. I can honestly say as well as every other service member that smokes, (which is a lot of service members) that smoking is a very great escape while in a very stressful situation. I have even had people ask me for a smoke that didn't smoke because they were so stressed out. Messing with the morale of the troops is never a good thing either. By banning the selling of tobacco products on military installations will kill morale indirectly as well. The PX on base is a non-profit organization. The money they do scrap off the top goes to entertaining the troops, helping the troops with various programs. I could go on but you could also visit www.MCCSlejeune.com Now that I covered that, lets look at the bigger issue Obama is causing this country as well as our kids for years and years to come. He has brought our budget deficit up to a record high, and he did it before being in office for 6 months!! Also I consider myself a free thinker and like to do what I want, when I want. Obama also wants to take that a way little by little. If he forces us to get medical coverage so employers can pick up the tab, what will that do for the company's who are already struggling?? Are we going to see more company lay offs because of this? I think it will on a short and long term level. Thank you for your quick response.

I propose that private practitioners should be prohibited from providing over-privileged panic-merchants with prophylactic prescriprions that protect posh patients from porcine pandemics. That's because although drugs like Tamiflu can prevent an individual from contracting swine flu, there aren't enough stocks of this anti-viral medicine to go round and, consequently, paranoid posh people have been purchasing this medicine from private doctors, even though they are not suffering any symptoms of the virus. (1) This costs them a small fortune but the posh know that if Tamiflu is running out, doctors would rather prescribe the drug to innocent little children rather than bloated tycoons or inbred aristocrats. You see, as far as the posh are concerned, the poor to can go to hell in a handcart - make no mistake, these over-privileged toffs and snobs don't care how many orphans die so long as they don't contract the virus themselves and have to suffer the inconvenience of a runny nose and a sore throat. Now, several governments around the world have, quite rightly, prohibited posh people from handing over huge wedges of cash in exchange for a Tamiflu precription and I contend that all governments should adopt this policy forthwith. Thank you. (1) http://www.newsweek.com...

Thank you Tashjar for your argument. For those reading, his argument can be found here. (http://www.debate.org...) Con’s arguments are separated into four sections, I will address each in turn. Personal Liberty: Con brings the principle of Personal Liberty into the mix. He states that “This principle is the Harm Principle, which is what I propose. The Harm Principle proposed by John Stuart Mill states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." I accept the harm principle and will demonstrate how it supports a smoking ban. I demonstrated last round that 1 in 5 deaths in America are the result of cigarette smoking. More relevant, this stat includes “an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.” This means that roughly 1 in 50 deaths that occur in the U.S. Annually are the result of secondhand smoke. Clearly smoking has a demonstrable, harmful, deadly effect on others. Applying the harm principle then justifies a smoking ban. Harmful effects on jobs and the economy: Essentially Con argues against smoking bans by referencing the money made. Consider if you would the reality that by allowing harmful substances like tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life. Profits are made and jobs created but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. Remember these lives that are being liquidated for the tobacco industry include some 41,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke. A smoking ban would negate or at least mitigate the damage done to society in this way. I leave this contention with a few questions. What good is a job if you are not alive or healthy enough to work? What good is a wealthy society void of justice that allows 41,000 people to be killed by others annually? What price is my opponent willing to accept in exchange for thousands of innocent lives lost? Consider this contention mitigated. A ban would likely not succeed in reducing smoking Con argues that a ban provides “no guarantee” of the injustice of smoking. While this is perhaps true. No law eliminates law breakers, it does however arm the people with the ability to hold trespassers of the law accountable by law. As it is, 41,000 people a year die as the result of another’s action with no means to hold those responsible accountable. We also know that a ban would discourage and diminish the amount of people who do smoke and the harm. Consider what I provided in my opening argument. “Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.”(4th source round 2) A Ban likely does reduce smoking, and in the cases it doesn’t, allows justice to be served to those who are harming others. A rise in gangs considering the dangers of gangs, this sounds like an interesting argument from con. Though I doubt the dangers of gangs compare to the 1 in 5 who die from cigarette smoke. Perhaps con could substantiate this contention by somehow demonstrating the harm compared to the harms of smoking. Conclusion: The only argument not refuted outright at this point is the contention of the rise of gangs. Though, this argument is not fully thought out or presented. Until con presents a clear demonstration of the harms, it remains that the harm of smoking outweighs the harm of gangs. We see that a smoking ban is just.

Your assumption is correct. And I have no intention of defining junk food, because this should be quite obvious. Now, I would like to state my case and attack my opponents. It is quite useless to ban junk food in schools as it truly wouldn't solve our problem at all. First off, there seems to be an issue with youth and rebellion. I know. I am young. If schools were to stop selling junk food, many students would indeed bring junk food to school. And so you say parents will be able to monitor what their children are eating. While this is true to an extent, it is also true that many children get an allowance. They could still buy these high sugar and fat goodies from a convenience store without their parents finding out. So nothing will be solved by not selling these goods at school because they would still have them available. Next my opponent says: "And really, what do you need junk food at school for, there are plenty of healthy alternatives which are just as tasty!" Getting a thousand America children and teens to believe that would be difficult. Getting them all to try it would be darn near impossible. Yes, there are healthy, delicious alternatives. But a generation raised on these snacks we have as of now will, for the most part, not be willing to try these alternatives out. My opponent may say I am being ridiculous or closed-minded about today's youth. I would like everyone out there to think for a moment about the children and teens you know. Rarely do teens listen to authority. Rarely do children skip a chance to stuff their face with sugar. Children and teens would go out of their way to get these snacks if they weren't in schools. And so, I stand on the Con side of this resolution. Thank you.

Thanks, Con. Re: A person can do what they choose with their own body. Con begins, "Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone." This is a contradictory statement. Con cannot say that a person should be able to do whatever they choose, but then say that they shouldn't be able to a second later. Further Con never explains how or why this is or the good of everyone. I also contend that it's not for the good of the willing buyer and seller. If I wish to sell a kidney for a million dollars, then Con cannot say "it's for my own good" that the government prohibits this transaction. The individual should be able to make personal decisions about their own body that do not inflict upon the rights of others. Con also says that most donors receive less than they deserve. Of course value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem and in fact view it as a positive. This is an option (for those who are willing) to make money and help save lives simultaneously. Personally, even though I definitely could us the money, I would not be willing to sell my organs unless for a substantial amount of money. If this could really help me, Con is only hurting me - and the recipient - by prohibiting this. So far, Con hasn't proven that a person should not be able to do what they please with their own person. Re: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs? Con writes, "Should something like blood [and a kidney] be treated the same? ... With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient's life forever." First, it doesn't matter if one process is more dangerous than another. Patients choose to have plastic surgery for shallow reasons despite the risks, even causing some to die [1]. If those risky procedures are still available, this type of surgery should be an option too. Second, Con completely ignored the most paramount aspect of this contention. In the last round I pointed out that people CREATE life for money (egg and sperm donation), though Con is suggesting we shouldn't be able to SAVE lives for money. Con must justify this hypocrisy. Re: Transplants are safe and effective. Con provides a statistic from the L.A. Times; however, upon searching the web I could not locate the source. I'd like Con to please provide a link or cited source proving his statistic. Nevertheless, his criticisms are as follows: First, that transplants are not too safe and fail 60% of the time. This general figure does not apply to all kinds of transplants. According to the Mayo Clinic, a liver transplants carries a risk to the donor's life of less than 1 percent, and it's just just 0.03 for a kidney [2]. Moreover, this procedure is just as risky as surrogate motherhood and yet that is legally available for purchase. Furthermore, this only suggests that organ donating is not successful -- not that it shouldn't be available for money. Once again, a buyer and consumer are responsible for understanding the risks of a particular trade. The potential danger only increases the value of the procedure. Second, Con mentions that 92% of families who chose not to donate their loved one's organs said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is completely and utterly irrelevant and in fact and in fact a contention in my favor. As I explained in the last round, those who are morally opposed to this procedure or who do not think it is worth the risk will simply not participate in these kinds of transactions. It's no different than saying those who are against abortions should not seek them, or those who don't like Cheese Doodles do not have to buy them. Re: Money will sway people from donating. Con provides a scenario in which one does not donate their kidney to a family member because they choose to sell it for money instead. I see no problem with this. In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful. Re: People can us the money to pay for funerals and other expenses. Here Con did not respond to the concept of funerals one iota. Instead he suggested that a market for organs would arise, to which I would completely agree and argue as a good thing. I'll use this opportunity to expand on why a market for organs would be helpful... In Takes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative, author James Taylor advocates using markets to increase the supply of organs available for transplantation [3]. In a 2004 journal article, economist Alex Tabarrok argues that allowing organ sales, and elimination of organ donor lists will increase supply, lower costs and diminish social anxiety towards organ markets [4]. The Economist argued that if 0.06% of Americans between 19 and 65 were to sell one kidney, the national waiting list would disappear - which is exactly what happened in Iran [5]. Again, why is saving lives a bad thing? Next, Con attempts to defend his own contentions. He begins by saying that financial incentives for donors would insult those who donated strictly out of humanitarian concern. I don't see why. I pointed out in the last round that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. While one's motives might be more selfish than another's, the original donor made the decision to give for free and that was good deed they should stand behind. They lose nothing from legalizing this policy. Con's next argument is that I have no evidence that incentives will increase the number of donors. However, Con himself completely contradicted his own argument a few paragraphs earlier. In point D, he wrote - and I quote - "Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to donate." Further there is indeed evidence that incentives will definitely drastically increase the number of available kidneys as evidenced by the Iranian example and the laws of supply and demand. Con writes, "You said that organ regeneration is not an option." I actually said it wasn't an option in all or many procedures, which is why we need to seriously consider financial incentives for people in need. If you were dying, and somebody wasn't willing to give you their kidney but agreed to sell it to you, wouldn't you want the option to establish this trade legally? Con's final point is at if assumed consent is applied, it will disregard the need for organ donation. This is completely false. First, many people will likely choose to take away consent for religious or moral reasons. Second, this completely disregards my point that this can benefit those who are willing and who wish to sell an organ while they are alive. In conclusion of this round, my opponent hasn't proven that organ donation is unethical or more dangerous than other legalized procedures (for money). Meanwhile, I've proven my proposal as both practical, effective and morally superior, as it respects an individual's personal freedoms. Thank you. [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.aynrand.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://econjwatch.org... [5] http://www.economist.com...

In this debate, I will be defending two arguments in support of the proposition that the government ought to ban smoking in public places: Firstly, I will attempt to show the objective harms of smoking and then show how a ban on smoking in public places can help to improve public health and the environment. 1. Smoking is objectively harmfulThis is a relatively uncontroversial proposition in regards to the medical and scientific community. Decades of research has shown the harms of smoking to the individual smoker. Indeed, according to the Center for Disease Control, cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths earch year and more people die of smoking-related deaths than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, vehicle accidents, and fire-arm related incidents combined (1). The smoker causes more harm than just individual damage. Secondhand smoke kills around 3,000 adults each year. According to the Surgeon General, "living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30%. " (2) According to HHS, laws banning smoking in public places help improve worker and customer health. (2) In addition to the public health crisis, smoking also is harmful to the environment. According to a report in Tobacco Control, air pollution by cigarettes are 10 times greater than that from cars and fossil fuels (3). 2. Smoking bans are effective means in reducing smokingResearch has shown that smoking bans in public areas are one of the most effective means of reducing smoking and improving public health. For example, when New York passed a comprehensive law to prohibit smoking in indoor areas of workplaces, restaurants, and bars, they found that there was an 8% reduction in hospital admissions and also found a 56 million dollar savings in hospital costs. (4)The BBC reports (5), "Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry. "Smoking bans are one of the most effective policies in reducing smoking. ConclusionIn summary, smoking is objectively harmful both to the smoker and to the people and environment around them. The government is justified in banning smoking in public places. The right to have a healthy, clean, and safe environment trumps the right for the smoker to smoke. _______1. (. https://www.cdc.gov...) 2. (. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...) 3. (. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...) 4. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) 5. (. http://www.bbc.com...)

DEATHSI just want to make this point very, very clear.As Proctor states [3]:"The cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilisation. Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. ... [A] billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course. Even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century."Consider that: 1,000,000,000 dead people. Most estimates of nuclear war put the deathtoll at maybe 500,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 dead people. Stopping cigarette consumption is equivalent to preventing a nuclear war.REDUCING SMOKINGConsider that smokefree policies have reduced smoking, even though they're limited to just the premises of a building [1][2]. If smokefree policies work at a local level, why shouldn't they work at a larger level?LIBERTYAs Proctor states [3]:"The primary reason for abolition, however, is that smokers themselves dislike the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human liberties. Abolition would also help cigarette makers fulfil their repeated promises to ‘cease production’ if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm. .... The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers ‘enjoy’ smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare—so rare that the industry used to call them ‘enjoyers’. Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that ‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week’. American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how ‘fortunate for us’ it was that cigarettes ‘are a habit they can't break’. Cigarette smoking itself, though, is less an expression of freedom than the robbery of it. And so long as we allow the companies to cast themselves as defenders of liberty, the table is unfairly tilted. We have to recognise that smoking compromises freedom, and that retiring cigarettes would enlarge human liberties."A ban helps smokers quit; most smokers *want* to quit. We thus both increase liberty and prevent harm at the same time.CRIME & ILLEGAL SMOKINGAs Proctor states [3]:"Another objection commonly raised to any call for a ban is that this will encourage smuggling, or even organised crime. But that is rather like blaming theft on fat wallets. Smuggling is already rampant in the cigarette world, as a result of pricing disparities and the tolerance of contraband or even its encouragement by cigarette manufacturers. Luk Joossens and Rob Cunningham have shown how cigarette manufacturers have used smuggling to undermine monopolies or gain entry into new markets or evade taxation. And demand for contraband should diminish, once the addicted overcome their addiction—a situation very different from prohibition of alcohol, where drinking was a more recreational drug. And of course, even a ban on the sale of cigarettes will not eliminate all smoking—nor should that be our goal, since people should still be free to grow their own for personal use. Possession should not be criminalised; the goal should only be a ban on sales. Enforcement, therefore, should be a trivial matter, as is proper in a liberal society."ECONOMYCon states: "The second thing is the economy would go down. They would give up more than 150 billion dollars which is a lot. So we would not be in the best state. Sorry for this being so short."As Proctor states [3]:"Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would ... effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation."Ending cigarette consumption is literally better than ending war, in terms of lives and money saved.As the New South Wales Dept. of Health states:Cigarette smoking costs "$2.9408" billion dollars in New South Wales, population 7.439 million. If we assume constant levels of cost across the world, then smoking would cost roughly 2.9 *trillion* dollars, per year.It's worth the tiny loss of profit, because of the gains from health, productivity, and elsewhere.[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...[3] http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...[4] http://www.health.nsw.gov.au...

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


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water should be prohibited due to its detrimental impact on the environment, health risks, and economic inefficiency. As per Food & Water Watch, bottled water is shockingly more expensive than gasoline and approximately 2,000 times pricier than tap water. The cost of a single-serving bottle of water is $9.47 per U.S. gallon, in comparison to gasoline at $2.35 and tap water at $0.005. Utilizing tap water is a more economical choice, as it is filtered and safe to consume. If there are concerns about its purity, one can opt for a water filter or boil the water.

The production of bottled water in the U.S. in 2016 required 4 billion pounds of plastic, which translates to an energy input equivalent to around 64 million barrels of oil, according to Food & Water Watch. Oil, a finite resource, is used for transportation and manufacturing of plastic bottles. The production of plastic necessitates water and crude oil, with a greater amount of water required for manufacturing than filling the bottle. This is a wasteful use of natural resources that could be allocated to more beneficial societal needs.

The transportation cost of bottled water is substantial and could be eliminated by banning plastic water bottles. People often discard plastic bottles irresponsibly, even when garbage cans are available, leading to environmental pollution. Plastic bottles often end up in the ocean, harming marine ecosystems and wildlife. Plastic water bottles can take over 450 years to decompose, and plastic itself requires nearly 1,000 years. Incineration is the most effective method for disposing of plastic, but it is seldom employed, and burning plastic can release harmful toxins.

Manufacturing bottled water also results in carbon emissions, contributing to pollution. Many people erroneously believe that bottled water is superior to tap water in terms of safety and cleanliness, but this is a misconception. Tap water is filtered to prevent contamination. A study by the State University of New York in Fredonia found that nearly all major brands of bottled water contained microplastics. Companies claim their bottling facilities operate to the highest standards, but the presence of microplastics contradicts this assertion. This issue is not exclusive to major brands but applies to bottled water in general.

*Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes
*Sources: [1] Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch.org) [2]

A true gentlemen's move! And just to clarify, I am generally against fracking, just thought it’d be fun to try the other side. My case won’t necessarily be that fracking is great, but that it isn’t bad enough to warrant a ban, and that we don’t have enough information to do so presently. A ban would hurt the US economically in a couple of ways and environmentally in a couple of ways, and I will make the case that there is no consensus about whether fracking is really good or bad. And I would say really quick that I hope the voters can do their best to put aside any preconceptions about fracking when reading this debate over, I know I sure had to so I hope you will too! The first part of my case will be going through the environmental issues surrounding fracking. P1- Environmental issuesCarbonI guess I’ll start with carbon emissions. Currently, the US has lower carbon emissions than any time in the last 20 years. (3) This is largely a result of an increase in shale gas useage and a decrease in coal. Shale is cleaner than coal, so it is better for the environment. Banning shale when there are no cleaner alternatives available to be implemented on a national scale yet would do more harm than good. The reduction in US carbon emissions is a great reason not to ban fracking. According to the British government, shale produced 46% less carbon for the same amount of heat (19). WastewaterAnother concern with fracking is the enormous amounts of water it takes. Estimates vary on how much water goes into 1 well, but it is somewhere between (according to Gasland) 2-8 million gallons of water. That is a lot of water, however most of that water gets recycled. In Pennsylvania, for example, 97% of water used in fracking was reused again. So although it takes a lot of water initially, lots of that water gets reused. Also, overall the water useage from fracking isn’t that large. About .3% of water useage in 2010 was for fracking, and considering large amounts of that get recycled it isn’t that much, certainly not enough to warrant a ban. Dangers from fracking can really be seperated into two categories, above and below ground. AbovegroundThe aboveground concerns are mainly methane leakage and chemical contamination of water and air from spills and accidents. Methane leakage is actually relatively low, in a recent study by University of Texas methane leakage levels from 190 areas wells were found to be about 1.5% (8), which was much lower than the EPA estimated percentage in the ballpark of 3. Opposition activists and scientists stated in 2010 that fracking would have no benefit if leakage levels were over 2%, so even by their standards fracking is beneficial. Of course any leakage is bad, but the leakage is low enough that fracking is beneficial. Another concern of environmentally is that chemicals used in the process can poison nearby areas. Basically this can happen if there are accidents at the well site, and these accidents are due to poor well construction (having uncemented well sites for example). It’s similar to an oil spill; it’s bad but it can be avoided. Energy companies estimate that regulations would likely increase shale energy costs by 25-35 cents mcf (1000 cubic feet of gas) which is hardly an increase in price at all. (13) The point is, risks of accident aren’t directly related to fracking so they shouldn’t affect a decision to ban, but these risks can be mitigated with practically no cost to companies with regulations. BelowgroundBelowground concerns deal mainly with methane and chemicals contaminating water, but there is no consensus on this issue either. Anti-frackers claim that it sets your water on fire from your faucet (see my opponents link) and that fracking contaminates nearby wells. However, there is no hard evidence. The EPA found in the past that fracking does not contaminate freshwater wells (15) Other instances where there were concerns about fracking contaminating have been dismissed after further research as well, such as a case in Colorado involving sink water catching fire (12). There is a large concern about the dangers of contamination from fracking chemicals and methane leaking, and obviously this is an area that should be further researched. But based on the current research, a ban isn’t justified. There isn’t enough evidence currently to say that fracking always contaminates surface wells, and there is very little evidence that wells are poisoned by fracking. In some cases where companies have been accused of damaging wells (16), the drilling was performed at shallower than normal levels (usually gas deposits are at about 10,000 feet below, underground water sits at about 1,000 feet). In any case, well damage has not been connected to fracking strongly enough to warrant a ban, but stricter regulation should be in place. If more research were to come along showing that all fracking, not just negligent fracking, damaged wells, a ban would be justified, but there is no evidence that that is the case. Overall, environmentally, fracking isn’t the best. It certainly isn’t the worst thing that we do. It is cleaner than burning coal, which is what it replaces. It has lowered carbon emissions for the US and made energy cheaper. When it is done responsibly there is little risk, and most of the risks have to do with well construction and depth. The main problem is that there isn’t enough information to justify banning fracking yet, especially because there is no consensus about critical issues like well contamination. The most important thing to note is that many of the problems could be fixed with regulations instead of ban, as regulations on fracking are pretty weak at the moment (as my opponent said, fracking is exempt from parts of 7 major statutes). If my opponents burden was that “fracking is bad” he’d have an easy win, but his burden is that there should be a ban. Based on all available current information, a ban would not be justified. So now lets discuss the economic benefits of fracking, and why a ban would not be so hot for the US. P2- Economy (brifely, because character limits)To start off, there are a lot of really obvious benefits to fracking economically. Besides being cleaner than coal, shale gas is cheaper, and this will result in $2,000 annual savings according the the IHS. Fracking itself supports roughly 400,000 jobs by itself (6) and a total of 2.1 million total jobs when all of the jobs associated with fracking are counted (19). If fracking is banned, these are immediate benefits that would be lost. Also, the expected growth from fracking, an industry that could support up to as many as 10 million jobs total in the future, would be lost. Even the US Chamber of Commerce has spoken on the issue, saying speculation about the dangers of fracking and stopping fracking could endanger the economy (6). US energy exports are also up as a result of fracking, which is beneficial for our economy (19). And although exporting carbon to other countries somewhat defeats the purpose of cleaning our own energy sources(7). , fracking still has a substantial net reduction for carbon emissions overall. A ban would really obviously be bad for the US economy, and since the environmental concerns aren’t really substanted as of yet, a ban really has no legs to stand on. Regulation would be wise and would allow the economic prosperity to continue, a ban would not. Another benefit of fracking is that it is easy to convert from coal to shale (6), and since the US needs a good bridge between the old and the new sources of energy, fracking can and does provide a cheap, clean way to provide energy while the US makes that transition. Obviously incentives will have to be created to switch from natural gas to cleaner energies, but that has always been the case. Until green power is cheap and efficient enough for companies to implement nationally with no economic risk then there is no reason shale gas should not be used for power. No more characters! Banning fracking would do bad, useless economic damage when the envorinmental justification for such a ban is so lacking and is nowhere near the standard it would need to be. 1-. http://www2.epa.gov...2-http://theenergycollective.com...3http://www.slate.com...4-http://reason.com...5-http://energyindepth.org...6-http://triblive.com...;7-http://bigstory.ap.org...;8-http://theenergycollective.com...;9-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;10- . http://cires.colorado.edu...;11-http://1.usa.gov...12-http://www.eenews.net...;13-http://www.economist.com...;14-http://bit.ly...15-http://bit.ly...16-http://www.npr.org...;17-http://www.gaslandthemovie.com...;18-http://bit.ly...19- . http://www.rtcc.org...;20-http://www.ihs.com...;

$10.07 is how much doing this every single day will save you over the year. A year of effort for $10. I thank you for the debate and topic and hope that we can do more debates in the future. Thank you,

Thank you Cpt. price for starting this debate. Good luck! I negate. Resolved: Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias. Definitions: Fast food chains- McDonalds, Subway, etc. junk food- soda, chips, etc. should be- ought to but have not done so. banned-officially or legally prohibit Cost benefit analysis will be the judging criterion to both sides. C1. Fast foods and junk food are a large source of income. S1. Sodas are a source of income. Say a 20oz coke cost $.75 and they sell for $1.25, the profit is .$50. Sodas are bought by the hundreds every day at a high school, so that's...alot. This profit along with profits of chips, candies, etc can go to academics, sports, art, or music programs. The students also enjoy the refreshing snacks. The companies also earns profits and those money can go into humanitarian programs. Ever since CA banned junk food and cutting funding my school district has lost money and began firing staff members, this creates a tougher environment for students and faculties. So by banning junk food causes job loss which then creates and increase in unemployment. Impact: The income of junk food benefits the students. http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com... states "In 2007, the Company and Foundation spent $6 million to support active, healthy lifestyle programs. S2. Fast food chains a source of income for the school and business. Companies do offer a fraction of the money they earn to the school, thus the school has another source of income for academics. In turn the chains receive a large profit that goes to programs that promote or gives environmental, charity, scholarships, etc. Impact: The income of fast food chains in school cafeterias benefit the students, teachers, and society in general. http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com... http://www.subway.com... Therefore by banning chains and junk food we are ultimately degrading human welfare. I will post my rebuttals in R2 due to a large amount of rounds.

Hello! Talking should be illegal. People gossip, lie and cuss way too much, which is terrible. We need to stitch everybody's mouth's shut so they won't talk, burp, cuss, shout, gossip, verbally insult people, or lie.

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.

Where are the morons! ? But I think medicine and science shouldn't take seriously these frauds and swindlers who sell water and market it as a cure all or whatever they may claim that it cures. Feeling better is all fine and dandy but these companies/people/quacks lie and mislead the public and need to be actively punished like any other business that would do so. These claims must be taken seriously, because they are scientific claims- false scientific claims. They cannot market water as a drug and sell it for a large price. Homeopathy does not work, though just thinking something works might make people feel better or even produce some type of artificial well being, it is not a drug and does not cure anything. I could just as easily sell sand and say that by putting this sand in your toilet, you will feel better. You might in fact feel better, but the claim is no less garbage and not proof that the sand has an effect as anything but 'delusional'.

I will begin with my claim and will follow with evidence. Claim: Smoking cigarettes is horrible for your body and the body's of people around you and therefore it should be banned. Evidence: I will begin by using the site . http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... for my evidence because it is a government site and therefore should be very reliable. point 1. 1 in every 5 deaths in the USA are caused by smoking, this is insane that means that 1/5 of the USA's deaths are from smoking, an obvious reason to ban it. point 2. Smoking has many long term affects including but not limited to cancer,lung problems,speech difficulties and diabetes. To address the risks you take by smoking observe the picture below . http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... point 3: Ever seen the videos like this . http://www.youtube.com... notice that these are made by the center of disease control. These videos are showing what happens to the people that are lucky enough not to die from smoking but it is hard to say they are lucky at all with the condition they are left in. point 4: Smoking is highly addictive meaning if you just smoke 1 or 2 times there is a very high chance you will become addicted and dependent, please take the time to read this exert from . http://www.cancer.org... "Regular use of tobacco products leads to addiction in many users. Nicotine is a drug found naturally in tobacco, which is as addictive as heroin or cocaine: When taken in small amounts, nicotine creates pleasant feelings that make the smoker want to smoke more. It acts on the chemistry of the brain and central nervous system, affecting the smoker"s mood. Nicotine works very much like other addicting drugs, by flooding the brain"s reward circuits with dopamine (a chemical messenger). Nicotine also gives you a little bit of an adrenaline rush " not enough to notice, but enough to speed up your heart and raise your blood pressure. Nicotine reaches the brain within seconds after taking a puff, and its effects start to wear off within a few minutes. This is what most often leads the smoker to light up again. If the smoker doesn"t smoke again soon, withdrawal symptoms start and get worse over time. The typical smoker takes about 10 puffs from each cigarette. A person smoking a pack per day gets about 200 "hits" of nicotine each day. Smokers usually become dependent on nicotine and suffer physical and emotional (mental or psychological) withdrawal symptoms when they stop smoking. These symptoms include irritability, nervousness, headaches, and trouble sleeping. The true marker for addiction, though, is that people still smoke even though they know smoking is bad for them " affecting their lives, their health, and their families in unhealthy ways. In fact, most people who smoke want to quit. point 5: Smoking is a waste of money, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes ranges from $4.96 Kentucky to $14.50 New york. . http://www.theawl.com... From those 2 numbers we can get the average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the USA which is $9.73. If we look at the average number of cigarettes smoked by a smoker per day we get just over 1 pack (20 cigarettes) but we will round to a pack to make the numbers easier. Therefore a smoker spends $3,551 per year on cigarettes ("national average spent by lower- income smokers " those with a household income under $25,000 " was 14 percent" . http://abcnews.go.com...). point 6: Using the data from my fifth point we can see that if a low income individual gets addicted to smoking (which is very likely to happen) then they will be spending $3,551 per year on cigarettes, think about the other things these low income individuals could be using that money on. According to . http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com... it costs a family of 4 $146 for food each month this means that they will spend an average of $7,008 dollars on food per year (keep in mind this is the bare minimum of food needed) I am sure that if a family of 4 making $25,000 or less could save $7,102 on not smoking (both parents are average smokers) that it would make a big difference on the quality of life for them and there children. point 7: A lot of people will argue that if you are only harming yourself then it is your decision what you do and I would generally agree with that. However this is not the case with smoking, while smoking you are harming the people around you in two ways. Second Hand Smoke:smoke inhaled involuntarily from tobacco being smoked by others "Second Hand Smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals. Many of these chemicals are dangerous; more than 50 are known to cause cancer. " Third Hand Smoke:"Tobacco smoke gets into the air and its residue stays on walls, floors, furniture, toys, and clothes. This smoke that adults carry around with them on their clothes is called thirdhand smoke. " Smoking and Children:"Parents who smoke cause many health problems for their children. Some of the problems they cause are making asthma worse, bringing on more colds and ear infections, and increasing the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Also "Research has shown that smoking during pregnancy causes health problems for both mothers and babies, such as: Miscarriage,Premature (early) birth,Low birth weight (three final points from . http://www.smokefreephilly.org... ) Conclusion: Smoking is not only a serious health hazard to yourself but also to people you are around while( and after) smoking, and your children. Smoking is addicting and is very expensive, Overall there are no pro's to smoking and lets not forget 1/5th of the deaths in America each year are caused by smoking. Those are the reasons that we need to ban smoking.

Many thanks to Rob 1 Billion (any relation to Bernie Madoff?) for accepting this debate and please accept my apologies for pressing Con instead of Pro. It would appear that we both broadly share the same view of peddlers of paranormal products but differ on the best way to tackle the problem. My opponent has made a number of contentions which I would like to address as follows: Contentions 1 & 4 My opponent rightly points out how supernatural con-merchants would seek to circumvent any regulations and continue to rip-off willfully misguided customers. Indeed, I have no doubt that many of these swindling tricksters would adopt his suggested ploys or even seek to rebrand themselves as follows: Before / After Fortune teller / fortune guesser Feng shui practitioner / furniture rearranger holistic medicine seller / placebo merchant Witchdoctor / ethnic dancer Shaman priest / voodoo stick-waver Astrologist / storyteller Never mind this though, what they will be doing will still be illegal, no matter how they dress up their nefarious activities. There is a precedent here. A drug dealer may sell a customer a wrap of cocaine for $100 and both the pusher and the punter will be happy with the arrangement, even though the customer knows that the drugs will do him harm. That's why the law steps in to protect him from himself. Of course, drug dealing continues to be widespread despite being illegal but that is no reason to decriminalise it so that we can go down the street and pop into a Megabucks Colombian Crack House for half an ounce of Charlie and a cappuccino, or walk into a branch of Smacko Bell's for a line of coke and, er...a glass of Coke. Contention 2 Once again, I agree that there is a fine line between superstitious beliefs and religious beliefs - a very fine line indeed. And, true, who is to say that a belief in Christianity is any more legitimate than a belief in astrology or voodoo magic? The reality is that certain religions are recognised by the state so that, in the United States for example, a Christian preacher doesn't pay income tax on sales of bibles whereas a Shaman priest flogging voodoo dolls or a gypsy peddling lucky heather does. I know it's not right, but certain religions occupy constitutionally privileged positions in many countries and there's not much that can be done about that. Contention 3 We, as a society, must make a collective judgement on which, if any, religion or superstitious belief is rational and beneficial. The most qualified people to do this are scientists as they concentrate on evidence, facts and the balance of probability to arrive at a conclusion. Religious people cannot be trusted to make an impartial decision - a devout Jew, for example, is unlikely, after considering all the evidence, to reach the conclusion that Pastafarianism is the one true faith and that we should all pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Of course, scientists will never be able to prove absolutely that the pattern of tea leaves left in the bottom of a cup cannot be used as a reliable predictor of future events but the burden of proof should be that superstitions are, beyond reasonable doubt, irrational and without merit, and making a profit from them should be outlawed. In conclusion, it is a government's prime responsibility to protect its citizens, from enemies from abroad and also enemies within, whether they be drug dealers or grasping spirit world mediums who prey on berevead relatives hoping to make a profit out of their grief. Thank you.

YOU have failed to provide your arguments and rebuttals in this round, thus you lose all points. I will continue the debate. There is nothing prohibiting me from continuing this round.ARGUMENTWhen a person smokes in public (and private, but the smoke won't affect anyone other than the main smoker) places, second hand smoke (SHS) is released. As a result, non-smokers breath in SHS. All of the health problems are spread to everyone else. I'll show you the facts 7,000 harmful chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to damage your health. [1] The smoke will stay in the air for a few hours after smoking. [1] SHS can cause breathing problems. It can cause coughing‚ extra phlegm‚ wheezing‚ and shortness of breath. And for children, it can also cause bronchitis, pneumonia and breathlessness. [1] "Since 1964, 2.5 million non smokers have died from exposure to second hand smoke." [2] This includes only adults, so the figure would be more had children been included. "Non smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%" [2] "Non smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%." [2] [1] http://smokefree.gov...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...; REBUTTAL "There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com....... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects."This topic is worldwide, even though it does not say so in the definition or topic. If you argue with that, a 7-point forfeit occurs. "The topic has to be debatable worldwide". There is simply no need to smoke publicly or semi-publicly; why not just smoke privately?"While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret." Any proof? Public smoking can easily by identified by any member of the community."Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers."I will address this in my argument. The 1 billion people that do smoke would at least not affect anyone else who DOES NOT smoke, as they smoke privately. Only the about 10/72 people who smoke would be affected, not the whole world."If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier."I have thought out my decision to alter your topic.

I don't think you understand the point of my argument.Tobacco is a legal product. In order to ban it, you need to find a basis to remove that legality. So far, you have offered only a few opinions on why this legality should be removed:1) Tobacco is bad for you2) Second-hand smoke is bad for bystandersTo which I responded with:1) Just because something is bad for you, doesn't mean it should be banned. Sugar is a great example of this.2) There is no scientific evidence linking second-hand smoke with adverse health effects to nonsmokers.To win this debate, Pro was supposed to provide enough valid reasons as to why the legal status of tobacco should be removed. Two reasons with scanty logic at best is simply not enough justification to ban tobacco. Keep in mind, Pro, that this debate is whether or not tobacco SHOULD be banned, not whether or not it COULD be banned. Of course, the government can ban whatever it wants to. But should they? Absolutely not.To answer your question in the last round, economic ownership applies to property rights. Earlier in this debate, you said that smoking on private property would be fine with you except for the problem of second-hand smoke. I demonstrated that second-hand smoke was not a problem, thus, it should be completely fine to smoke on private property, like you said earlier in this debate. The argument about economic ownership was simply a follow up to that.To summarize this debate:I have provided enough justification to demonstrate why tobacco should remain legal. I have made arguments stating that the government should not be allowed to decide what you choose to put inside of your bodies, which Pro never responded to. I have dismissed the myths about second-hand smoke and demonstrated that there is, in fact, zero scientific evidence supporting the idea that second-hand smoke is actually harmful to non-smokers, which Pro never responded to.Pro has resorted to using the same two arguments this entire debate, and I have thoroughly refuted both of these. Thus, there is no reasonable justification to ban tobacco.


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Tap water (advantages) vs. bottled water (disadvantages)
"The issue with bottled water is that the bottles can sometimes be faulty or not properly sealed, and as a result, some of it can pose similar risks to those associated with tap water tanks." This statement highlights a critical point. "The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water." Water, in itself, is a chemical, and in large quantities, it can be lethal (through drowning). Tap water is indeed strictly regulated, but only until it is piped to consumers. My argument remains valid and is acknowledged. This point should therefore be removed. One needs a container to drink tap water, which must then be washed, using the same amount of water required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on the number of minerals present, but rather on the accumulation they cause. A small amount of mineral in the water can still leave deposits in the pipes. Cost: I was referring to bulk purchases, not individual bottles. If one buys a large quantity of bottled water, the cost almost equals that of purchasing the same amount of tap water from a water supplier. (This argument is also hypothetical and depends on the supplier) The taste argument is irrelevant. Offer a group of people a choice between sugar water and tap water, and most will opt for the sugar. Bottled water is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and then left to sit in an open tank. The burden of proof lies with the proponent of bottled water. I present a hypothetical scenario. The opponent concedes the carbon footprint argument. E. coli is not the most hazardous substance found in water. Human remains are. (http://indiatoday.intoday.in...), which demonstrates that anything can contamm...). My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some was conceded by the proponent. The proponent seems to misunderstand my refutation of point 4, which was not technical. The proponent uses a source that is unreliable, cannot be verified, and does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles produced is not specified.

To conclude: Point One: Harm and Environment Smoking should be ban, or at least, be discouraged as it harms the health of other people. Eliminating smoking in our culture can help to increase people's health. Imagine a non smoking community, how lovely it would be. Imagine if your future children or your children (if you have) will not be engaged in smoking, that will be a benefit, too. Smoking is not something an individual will look for if he/she does not see it in his/her environment. Its something more on influence, so, if you have a community or a family of non smoker, definitely, smoking won't be part of that person's life. Smoking is more deadly than alcohol, in fact, alcohol has more benefits than smoking cigarette. Alcohol: When taken moderately, you can have the benefits Cigarette: The moment you smoke, the moment you'll receive its deadly toxins little by little. Even when its for first and last, and worse, when you become addicted to it. 2) Banning smoking won't kill Freedom Banning smoking will only help as it discourages people not to smoke, which would mean, for healthy benefits. The presented argument on Round 2 of mine will show the negative effects of smoking, and if you avoid smoking, then, you are saved from those negative effects. As also said, smoking is not something a non smoker would just look for, rather, by influence. If people won't even love or embrace smoking in their life, then, the next generation will eventually won't embrace it, too. 3) Money loss or Innovation? Unemployment or Opportunity? To ban smoking means to look for an alternative use of tobacco in such a way it would be useful. If banning of cigarettes would be implemented, then factories of cigarettes will be encouraged to find alternative - well, the government can help if they want to. Thanks and God bless to all! :)

No, because another handle would create a large surface area and would thus use more plastic and consequently do more harm to the environment. [1] The benefits are negligible as someone could balance the bottle on their other hand while holding it steady with the handle if required. [1] - http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org...

G'day and good luck to my opponent. I'll be taking the CON side in this debate, please excuse me all, I wont write long arguments, I haven't been on Debate.org for a really long time, Helaas. I hope that Pro will give me more information why that house will ban chocolate for under ten children. There was a very good comment by @MagicAintReal : "But if there are more than ten children you're cool with it?"

I also enjoy debating this topic, sir. Thank you.You stated that your main stance is that banning alcohol will only increase drunk driving rates because people will have to go out in search for it, and also it should not be taken away from those that drink responsibly. You also mentioned that alcohol has health benefits, which I whole-heartedly agree with. I apologize, I should have defined alcohol at the beginning of the debate and what exceptions there might be, that is my fault. I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable.The CDC article you mentioned stated that 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men is considered moderate. I ask you, what is considered 1 drink? A tankard? A shot glass? Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."A majority of people consume an average amount of alcohol, or no alcohol at all." You did not attach a source to this, but if it is true it only supports my argument. If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "It is basically the same as banning knifes because some, but not all, abuse their rights to own knifes and hurt themselves or others."Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alchohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares. "What I am getting at is that making alcohol illegal will put more people on the streets, drunk, because they must go out of their home in search of it."This goes back to my argument for enforcement. If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen. The same laws that apply to drunk drivers today would still apply, if not be even more strict. That would discourage drunk driving considerably in my opinion. "Banning alcohol would be an economic disaster. The alcohol industry makes billions each year. The tobacco industry also makes a quite a bit as well: "You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol. This means that consumer taxing would not be that high to begin with. Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source. How many people do you see smoking on a day to day basis? And yet it kills many Americans. I won't quote the statistics, but we all know the numbers suffering and dying from lung cancer is far greater than we would care to know about. Why not raise the tax on tobacco and end the problem? If anything, this would drop the number of those with lung cancer and give hospitals the chance to treat others rather than those who abuse their bodies. If anything, I ask how tobacco companies can justify the production of tobacco to begin with since it holds zero health benefits."Now, how much exactly do you plan to tax this industry? Because if you take it too high, it will collapse as well - resulting in two huge industries falling."I'm not an economist, but in short taxing done in moderation and an increase in other sources would make up for the absence of alcohol."Yet, the policy of prohibition wasn't fully enforced in good times - how would we pay for it in times of a poor economy like the one today? If the riches of the 1920's couldn't afford to end the illegal sale of alcohol, how could we manage it now?"This goes back to those 3000 nationwide agents and enforcement. The riches of the 1920s had nothing to do with it. It was simply the number of those enforcers that weren't doing the job to begin with. If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweight the cost involved. Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it. The old saying goes, eat right, stay fit, die anyway. I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict. Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero.Prohibition did work. It simply wasn't put into effect in the right way.

Fast food chains should be banned from school cafeterias. Why? Children are getting obese every day from regularly eating fast food at school. No laws are being made to enforce it. This low-quality food is casing many illnesses, from cardiovascular disorders to ADHD, making children perform worse in school and their life. Some parents don't care enough about their child and don't decide to give them home lunches. Many children enjoy the food and don't think about the long-term effects of the chemicals that they put in their mouths. In a recent study, it was shown that kids consume more calories that nutrients during days when they eat junk/fast foods. Today's teens are three times more likely to be obese that 20 years ago. Are children actually capable of saying no to fast food when the glorious smell of burgers rules the halls? Of course not! Are parents able to withstand the outrageous cheapness of a filling lunch that their kids savour? Again, of course not!!! Children do not only consume this food every day, but they order more, supersize their portions and engorge until they can hardly breathe. Fast food chains don't give two plops about a child's health. The cashiers just want to make more money. If children come for another five portions, who's going to stop them, really? I await my opponents response.

WARNING: The video I included has some adult language and has a lot to do with religon. The god parts aren't the point, though. Feel free to ignore them. . http://www.youtube.com... You said: "Have you ever seen a comercial were they show an aquatical animal trapped in garbage? Have you ever read a story that sounds like: "Nineteen billion pounds of blah blah was found on the shore of wherever today. It all came in from the ocean. " or "Today, some scientist on a boat found two tons of garbage and plasice just floating there. " Yes I have and if we stop combating water pollution It would read like "Seventy-thousand billion pounds of blah blah was found on the shore of wherever today. It all came in from the ocean. " and "Today, some scientist on a boat found sixty tons of garbage and plastic just floating there. " You said: "Also, there are about 3,500 oil rigs out there in the ocean. (Source: cbsnews. com) That means that there are at least 3,500 opertunities for an oil spill. Most people remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a couple years ago. It took around a year for things to get well enough that the news leave it alone, and there are still places seriously in need off help. " Correct. There are a large number of oil rigs and there are hundreds of ways thing can go wrong. But we do have a minimum of oil rigs thanks to opposition to water pollution. If we just stop all conservation efforts that number would more than triple. You said: "It is obvious that there is always going to be water polution, so why no just stop trying to fight it now," We should keep fighting because there are many regions that rely on the sea for their food source.

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

== Rebuttal == Under the headline "A person can do what they choose with their own body," Con begins making his argument which has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument that a person can choose what to do with their own body. As such, I'm going to make a list of entirely dropped arguments to post at the conclusion of this round, so the audience can have a clear picture of my points that were never clearly addressed. Con begins, "The ban is placed because not all people are kind and just." Notice that not everybody being kind and just is not a reason whatsoever to keep the selling of organs illegal. Not everyone is kind and just, but you can still sell cars. You can sell all kinds of things. I don't see how this is relevant at all. Con continues, "Are you so selfish that the only thing you want is to make a million dollars, and stand by while the poor and disadvantaged are preyed upon?" This sentence literally makes no sense whatsoever. First, it's poor conduct for Con to call me selfish and to make assumptions about what I would do in any situation. I'm merely here to debate a particular side of a resolution. Second, it's not true that the poor would be "preyed upon" in any way and Con hasn't explained as such. It's true that poor people would probably not be able to afford organs, but it's no different than how poor people cannot afford to seek the best possible medical care and treatment while others can. Con writes, "We have evidence that the poor are the ones most likely to be exploited." The poor would not be exploited. Poor people could choose not to sell their organs and live just how they are now. Or, one could sell another's organs after they die, in which case the money could be used to help the poor family. In that way this HELPS the poor. I've explained this in the last round. Con responded, "True, some people will lose the chance of making a few thousand bucks, but this will prevent lives from being destroyed by organ traders." Con failed to explain how organ traders would destroy lives rather than save them. Again I'm not suggesting the impoverished should be solicited to sell their organs, but if that's what they freely choose (or choose to have happen upon their death) then that's their prerogative. There's a difference between coercion and force. People are free to make their own choices. Also, poor people have to deal a lot of crappy things. A rich person buys a McDonald's and does nothing but pays a poor person $8 an hour to flip burgers while the owner sips pina coladas by their pool. Isn't that "exploitation" according to my opponent's definition? Isn't that the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation for personal gain? The rich pays the poor bare minimum to do all the work just so the rich can make a higher profit. Of course that fits the definition perfectly. But would Con suggest that this practice be ended too? Or should he accept the fact that people are exploited constantly throughout our every day lives and thus particularly value freedom? Con writes, "Pro said value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. However, it says in US News that most of these people get paid less than they actually wanted, and less than what the deal was." First, I'd appreciate a source. Second, if they don't get what they were supposed to get then that's a legal issue in which these people deserve legal protection and compensation for their loss in the trade. This is exactly why organ selling should be legal: because this is a valid market transaction and should be kept off the black market to ensure that the law can protect people's rights and uphold contracts and other agreements. Regarding sources, Con writes, "Pro said unable to find my source. You cannot find everything online!" Con can feel free to quote a non-online source, but he didn't properly cite anything so I am not able to double check or fact check his statistics. This is important because we have conflicting statistics. Since mine have been properly cited and readily available for the audience, mine should without a doubt be considered more than his. Con continues, "I'm saying that 92% DON'T want incentives, meaning that legalizing them will not do much to solve our crisis." First, there's still an 8% that would have their mind's changed and thus this would help regardless. Second, that is not at all what my statistics say, and again the audience is free to go back to R2 and check out my numbers and sources compared to Con's. He completely dropped (which I will mention later) all of my statistics from The Economist and other places indicating that financial incentives would absolutely encourage more organs being donated. Con writes, "If this occurred, organs will only go to the wealthiest, instead of going to those who were in line first." However Con never explained why this is wrong. In our society, most things are optional for the wealthy first. If Con has an issue with this then he has an issue with capitalism itself. Why is a first-come, first-serve basis necessarily more moral? Perhaps John is first on the list but is a convicted rapist. And perhaps Mary Sue is last but she's a children's volunteer. Also, there are lots of ways to get around poor people being glossed over, such as insurance, government health care, loans and payment plans or other options. In conclusion, Con writes "Because we cannot regulate markets properly, they could be dangerous for both the donor and the recipient." This is absurd. By that logic we shouldn't have a market for anything and our entire economy/society would collapse. Moreover what needs to be regulated? The only thing that needs to happen is that trade agreements and contracts are enforced, to ensure both people get what they want and expected to get out of the transaction. == Dropped Arguments == 1. A person has the right to do what they please with their own body. 2. Con dropped the point about how other surgeries such as plastic surgery or surrogate mothers are just as dangerous if not more-so than organ donation, negating his rebuttal for why plasma should be able to be sold but not kidneys. 3. Con never answered why we should be able to create life for money but not save life for money. 4. Con ignored the fact that my statistic destroyed his. He said transplants fail 60% of the time but is completely unable to provide a source for this; I provided a source stating otherwise (for example liver transplants only fail 1% of the time, and for kidney's it's far less). 5. I said those who were against these procedures or policies need not engage, just like pro-life people need not have abortions. If donating organs is more important to them, they can donate instead of sell. If people are willing to sell and people are willing to buy, a legal market should absolutely exist. 6. Con dropped my statistic from The Economist. Please extend. 7. Regarding humanitarian concern, I pointed out that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. Con dropped this contention. 8. Con dropped the argument that organ donation would increase if there were financial incentives. He can't just say "that's not true;" he has to provide arguments or evidence against my analysis and cited sources. 9. Con dropped the point about how donation and not regeneration is most practical or possible in many situations. 10. Con dropped the point about "automatic consent" and my subsequent criticisms. Please extend these and any other dropped arguments I may have missed.

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.

At the moment this debate is just going to be you stating stats then me stating stats and the stats will always contradict eachover. This argument is more about morals and logic than stats ans science. You, me or anyone else should never have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking. People that smoke now are educated about the health risks, and this is a good system, it allows people the right to choose what they want to do with THEIR bodies. Rebuttals- "Not to mention how much a pack of smokes cost" Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them. The United States government brings in an anual tax revenue of $5,860,000,000 from cigarette tax. How do you think this would effect the non-smokers in society? They would have to pay almost 6 billion more dollars on taxes a year, something tells me theat once the people that want smoking banned realise this they won't be so eager to ban smoking. "You are assuming that all food leads to obesity and that is not true." 1) Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope. 2) I stated all FAST food is bad for you, an important detail, my point is, if you are so eager to improve everyone else's lives by taking away their rights then why dismiss thinks like fast food which as you say, may not be linked to lung cancer but is proven to cause health problems. "Yes--just like selling drugs on the streets is illegal. We can enforce the law and security." Is this a joke? Because I have to say I laughed a little when I read this. Its not like in Mexico (where drug use is illegal) there are cartels running around gunning eachover down and beheading eachover on the internet. Yeah I'd say drug control is going pretty well. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/02/26/where-7-mexican-drug-cartels-are-active-within-the-u-s/ latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/12/mexican-drug-cartel-violence-spreading-to-rural-us-as-police-crackdown-in-major/ "But also how smoking is basically suicide and homicide." Suicide - "The action of killing oneself intentionally" To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc. Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers. You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them. "You chose to rebut only the part of my argument about the side effects of smoking, that's sad." So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad. As for these videos, I cant see the link so... I will give you more reasons smoking shouldn't be banned now. Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold. This resulted in massive amounts of violence and lots of innocents being killed, is this what you want? There's an old saying "learn from your mistakes" it applies here. Thousands of jobs in the tobacco industry would be lost, that means thousands more lives ruined by your plan to ban smoking. A smoking ban would disregard property rights, why should the politicians or people like you have the power to tell someone what they can do on their own property? This is another breach of basic rights. The smoking ban removes freedom of choice. The smoking ban is not democratic, as much as I criticize your much loved democracy, it is clear that this isnt a democratic choice, "the UK office of national statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban." [1] [1] www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/9278#.VBTDtn3TXMI My summary of my argument is this- If you are a fan of democracy the smoking ban is undemocratic. If you are a libertarian the smoking ban takes away peoples rights to make their own basic decisions. If you value a co-operative society then the smoking ban doesnt because it would take a man or woman away from his or her family and throw them in jail, and ruin the lives of them and their children because they made a poor health choice. It would increase the crime rate, it would also increase the amount of taxes everyone would have to pay. Prohibition on alcohol has failed before, so has the prohibition on drugs so why would a smoking ban be practical? Thank you for reading my debate I hope you choose freedom over being controlled.