Are you for or against GMOs?
Debate Rounds (3)
Con says GMOs cause "gastrointestinal problems, organ changes, tumors, and more". None of this is cited. In fact, there have been over 2000 studies which show that biotechnology doesn't harm a human's health and that GMO food is just as if not healthier than organic food. (1) Con then goes on to talk about how Bt corn is dangerous. However, Con fails to explain why and is simply fear mongering. In fact, no harmful effects have been found to be caused by Bt corn. (2)
C1-GMOs are more efficient
GMOs can provide more food than regular crops could. This will be necessary with population growth and can help those starving. (3) In fact, along with GMOs not being dangerous (as proved above) GMOs have been found to not be much different nutritionally than organic food, from Dr. Dena Bravata at Stanford University, "when it comes to individual health, "there isn't much difference". (4) Scientists are even finding ways to make GMOs more nutritious than organic food. (5) Therefore, since GMO crops produce a higher crop yield and are basically no different health wise to organic foods GMO crops should be grown.
And here's the proof for the animal research- http://www.responsibletechnology.org...
Con seems to not understand what "efficient" means. It means, "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense." (1) GMOs increase crop yield and therefore are more efficient. (2) Con then proposes we should share food more. It may be a noble idea, but Pro doesn't actually elaborate on this point. Instead she references an anti-GMO website providing evidence that GMOs aren't needed to feed the world. Even if that's true, GMOs are still the best way to feed the world. (3) For one thing, global demand for wheat is expected to increase 60% and since GMOs increase crop yield they will help meet this demand, faster than organic crops could. (4) Another reason greater crop yield is necessary, is that global warming is hurting crop yield, so increasing crop yield is a necessity. (4) As mentioned above GMOs do that.
R2-GMO Free Cereal in Europe
Completely useless point. Doesn't prove that GMOs are bad.
Con doesn't address any studies I referenced showing GMOs aren't dangerous. However, she does provide the source absent from the 1st round, so I'll address that. The article references a study by Gilles-Eric S"ralini. S"ralini has a history of pseudoscience regarding GMOs and will continually run experiments discredited by the scientific community. (5) However, there have been countless reputable studies that show GMOs aren't harmful.
In the "efficient" thing- I was referring to the fact that you said, "GMOs can provide more food than regular crops could." I was simply referring to the fact that all statistics can be skewered any way you wish. You can easilly say that GMOs produce more food than non-GMOs, but leave out the fact that more GMOs are planted.
GMO free cereal- No,it simply proves that we as Americans need to step up our game and stand up for ourselves and our best health interests.
Now, one last thing- both you and others have said that I am simply mongering, and I would like to say, "Exactly!" These studies everyone cites are only so "long-term"! What if there are effects after 70, 80, 100 years?! We don't know, and we won't until it's to late!
Con does nothing to prove that statistics are skewed. The whole reason GMOs are produced is to increase crop yield. Since genes are genetically engineered they can be given more favourable traits, which help increase growth rates, size. and can make them less likely to fail (e.g. are more tolerant to insects). (1)
R2-GMO Free Cereal
This point is still irrelevant to the debate.
R3-Long Term Effects
Burden of proof is on you to prove that they are dangerous and therefore, what may happen is irrelevant. Also, she provides no reason for us to assume they will be harmful.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yassine 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: - Sources: Pro has clearly provided more independent reliable sources (such as Forbes . . .). => Pro's win. - Rest: Undecided.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.