Kyron (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-18 00:37:02
| Speak Round
Kelnius (CON)First, I'd like to thank Kyron for agreeing to this debate. Although they have forfeited their round, I still admire the courage it takes to accept a secret topic debate. I, too, was uneasy about beginning, but I will make the opening round under the assumption that it will give my debate partner some intellectual cud to chew on for their reply, & hopefully respond next round.
I am arguing against the claim That Mercury should be labelled as "Safe for General Use"; & in fact believe that it should not be labelled this way. I have several reasons why I would stand by this position, & they can be subcategorized in responses to three sentence fragments from this original claim. My word count is low, so I don't have time to redefine terms, but , we can use common dictionary definitions, & we'll define terms as we go. Just with the understanding that "Safe for General Use" is a phrase being used as a label. Also, because I am Australian & talking first now, I see no reason not to use Australia as my reference point for legal documentation.
"That Mercury should be Labelled."
My first contention is that this phrase can mean two things, but both of them I disagree with. The first is that "all pure mercury (for sale, trade or private use) should have a label on its container . . ." or "all mercury products or mercury compounds . . . should have a label on its container . . ." - since there are over 70 mercury compounds, including those of organomercury & mercuric minerals combined, suggesting that all of these products, despite their disparate uses, should have this label applied is patently ridiculous. The list includes products from "Mercurial diuretics" which cause urination & occasionally fever, rash & death to "Nitromersol" an antiseptic disinfectant which has been linked to cancer. For my opponent's benefit, I must assume they refer only to pure mercury, but even then I must disagree. There's no "need" no "should" for a label about generalizations. According to the ACCC website, labels must by law display information about pricing; customs regulated information & safety and hazard warnings, and should include instructions for use; ingredients & country of origin labelling. "Safe for General Use" is none of these things.
"Labelled as Safe"
Mercury is not "safe". To call it safe is unbelievably misleading. There is a reason that mercury-based products have been incrementally phased out in the last century; but to be clear, that reason is: Mercury can be absorbed through the skin & mucous membranes & mercury vapors can be inhaled, which causes mercury poisoning. This presents as peripheral neuropathy; paresthesia or itching, burning, pain; skin discoloration (pink cheeks, fingertips & toes); swelling; & the shedding or peeling of skin & loss of teeth in children. A person suffering from mercury poisoning may experience profuse sweating, tachycardia, increased salivation, hypertension, kidney dysfunction or neuropsychiatric symptoms such as emotional lability, memory impairment, or insomnia. Intense or prolonged exposure can cause irreversible damage or death; & the risk increases with the young, the elderly & the unhealthy.
"That Mercury should be Labelled."
My first contention is that this phrase can mean two things, but both of them I disagree with. The first is that "all pure mercury (for sale, trade or private use) should have a label on its container . . ." or "all mercury products or mercury compounds . . . should have a label on its container . . ." - since there are over 70 mercury compounds, including those of organomercury & mercuric minerals combined, suggesting that all of these products, despite their disparate uses, should have this label applied is patently ridiculous. The list includes products from "Mercurial diuretics" which cause urination & occasionally fever, rash & death to "Nitromersol" an antiseptic disinfectant which has been linked to cancer. For my opponent's benefit, I must assume they refer only to pure mercury, but even then I must disagree. There's no "need" no "should" for a label about generalizations. According to the ACCC website, labels must by law display information about pricing; customs regulated information & safety and hazard warnings, and should include instructions for use; ingredients & country of origin labelling. "Safe for General Use" is none of these things.
"Labelled as Safe"
Mercury is not "safe". To call it safe is unbelievably misleading. There is a reason that mercury-based products have been incrementally phased out in the last century; but to be clear, that reason is: Mercury can be absorbed through the skin & mucous membranes & mercury vapors can be inhaled, which causes mercury poisoning. This presents as peripheral neuropathy; paresthesia or itching, burning, pain; skin discoloration (pink cheeks, fingertips & toes); swelling; & the shedding or peeling of skin & loss of teeth in children. A person suffering from mercury poisoning may experience profuse sweating, tachycardia, increased salivation, hypertension, kidney dysfunction or neuropsychiatric symptoms such as emotional lability, memory impairment, or insomnia. Intense or prolonged exposure can cause irreversible damage or death; & the risk increases with the young, the elderly & the unhealthy.
"Safe for General Use"
To begin with, I decided I should find the legal definition for this term, however I could not find one, even though I searched Australian Government's Department for Industry, Innovation & Science website & the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission website for the term; & I didn't rely solely on their search engine, I scoured through these sites as best I could - none could be found. If my opponent has a legal/official/accepted definition of this term, this point is void, but as it is my only conclusion is that this term means as it sounds "when used (generally) this is safe". But Mercury doesn't have a general use, & it isn't safe, so I...
To begin with, I decided I should find the legal definition for this term, however I could not find one, even though I searched Australian Government's Department for Industry, Innovation & Science website & the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission website for the term; & I didn't rely solely on their search engine, I scoured through these sites as best I could - none could be found. If my opponent has a legal/official/accepted definition of this term, this point is void, but as it is my only conclusion is that this term means as it sounds "when used (generally) this is safe". But Mercury doesn't have a general use, & it isn't safe, so I...
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-24 03:32:06
| Speak RoundKyron (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-31 03:33:01
| Speak RoundKelnius (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-11-07 03:33:01
| Speak Round
Judge: Random Stranger
Judge: Kohai
Judge: admin
Judge: Judgement
Judge: fire_wings
Judge: brandon.the.debater
Judge: Bi0Hazard
If I were on the pro side, my arguments would pretty much be a semantic s!t storm. Posted 2016-10-25 06:08:34
@Kelnius Yeah just for my sake. Then I can go into the database, copy the exact data that is bugged, and spend time going over it. What's weird is that the character counter on the page and the truncation thing are based on the same script, so they really shouldn't behave differently, but it'd be interesting to investigate.
Word shows up 3850ish characters so I'll take a closer look at what you did submit at some point anyway, see what it comes up with.Posted 2016-10-25 00:46:20
@admin I was at the end of the time to post, and didn't want to miss it again. And it's not a huge issue, I only lost two sentences, I just didn't want people to think I trailed off at the end for no reason . . .
Or, is this for [i]your[/i] sake, to try to fix the bug?
For the record, I went over in my first draft, so I reduced it so as to hit exactly on the 4000. Then it said "too long, it's been truncated", so I managed to get rid of 35 more characters, but it still cut it off. I don't know if that helps, but if you want, I'll let you know in the future if it happens again.Posted 2016-10-25 00:35:57
@Kelnius Next time this happens, please tell me before you submit it. If I can see the draft it helps.
In general it's been a longstanding bug that the character counter is accurate to within a few characters, but it can be slightly wrong as there might be some odd code that confuses it.
Also it's a character count, not a word count.Posted 2016-10-24 11:45:36
@admin My word count was less than the required wordcount, but it still cut off the end. I reduced it so that it was only cutting off the conclusion, but why did it do that? Is it because I added links? Does that bump up the wordcount?
Unfortunately, I can't tell you what I was GOING to say in my conclusion, since that's probably against the rules, but it fit when I wrote it!Posted 2016-10-24 03:35:45
Unfortunately, this person is going to forfeit. No debate here.Posted 2016-10-17 14:03:24
Tip: when you at-tag, try not putting punctuation immediately after a tag. It gets the tag system confused because a username itself can contain punctuation.Posted 2016-10-17 10:13:41
@BioHazard, I must admit, that is a fun one.
@Kyron, is everything alright? Come on, what can mercury be used for? Is there something with the current labelling which disallows its effective and beneficial use? Give it a go.Posted 2016-10-17 01:38:53
Not bad of a topic.
If only it was, "That only women should be allowed to vote". That would be a great topic.Posted 2016-10-11 08:32:54
As the kids say . . . "YOLO". I'm going for it. I've always been trepidatious about these secret topics, and even seen a couple fail by default because both sides don't like the topic. But, I like this one, I can work with this.Posted 2016-10-11 00:39:39
k thanks but i saw some of your debates and your really good xD.
Posted 2016-10-10 18:53:37
@Kyron
I may accept eventually. Posted 2016-10-10 14:57:56