The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Are you for or against GMOs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,100 times Debate No: 73686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




GMOs are detrimental to our health and safety! As animal research points to, GMOs cause gastrointestinal problems, organ changes, tumors, and more! I mean, who wants to risk knowing personally what "organ changes" means?!?! We don't need GMOs and we never will. Or, have you heard of Bt corn? Well, chances are you eat it all the time! Bt corn is produced containing the Bt protoxin, which puts holes in the corn borer larvae's gut when eaten!!!! This is directly implanted in our food! HOLES in the insect's GUT! So, what can I say to that? "Have fun at your next picnic"? I mean, come on! This is corn that I could buy at Price Chopper! I don't want to eat this! I don't want my little larvae- I mean sister, eating this! This is ridiculous, dangerous, and unnecessary! As Andrew Kimbrell said, "There is no shortage of sweet corn." And, I'll just point out, Mr. Kimbrell is against GMOs, and he is the executive director of Health and Food Safety!!!! So therefore, I conclude, DOWN WITH GMOS! ;)


R1-GMOs are Dangerous
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.

Debate Round No. 1


So you said they are more efficient? Well, true, right now more GMOs are produced than "normal", but that's because people refuse to stop growing the GMOs, and grow them instead of normal!!! If we all went back to kindergarten and learned how to SHARE, we would have plenty of food for everyone with out the "help" of GMOs! (1) And by the way, are you really saying that you look forward to bacterial genes in your breakfast cereal?! Did you know that General Mills sells a non-GMO form of Cheerios in Europe, yet gives us a GMO-laden cereal! (2).
And here's the proof for the animal research-


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.

Debate Round No. 2


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.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by maxwell.lane 3 years ago
Con is simply fear mongering as Pro had stated, and is yet to successfully refute any points. Con has also tried to put fear mongering into Cereal. "are you really saying that you look forward to bacterial genes in your breakfast cereal?!" Con inappropriately tried to rhetorically appeal to a sense of fear that does not even exist. I do in fact look forward to bacterial genes in my cereal, because they are obviously there for a reason, and given that 99.9% of bacteria is harmless or beneficial to human biology. Use some science please. Your sources are also very Biased
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yassine 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: - Sources: Pro has clearly provided more independent reliable sources (such as Forbes . . .). => Pro's win. - Rest: Undecided.