The Instigator
blueberry_crepe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Fereska
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

GMOs are Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Fereska
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,433 times Debate No: 36809
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

blueberry_crepe

Pro

For this debate, GMOs refer to genetically-modified crops. I have resolved that GMOs are good because they benefit society at little to no cost.

I intend to show that GMOs have no proven inherent risk by the science community. Independent studies may say so, but the consensus is more important.

I would also like to remind my opponent that this is a debate on GMOs. NOT Monsanto, not how GMOs are misused by large companies, not copyright laws on seeds, not big corporation's corruption. It is just on GMOs.
Fereska

Con

I accept this debate.

However, before I started I want to make a point. One cant talk about GMO's and proving that it is good or bad with stating the companies that use them. For example, can you debate on this topic " Junk food is good" without using Mcdonalds, KFC, and other junk food restaurnants, as your proof that junk food is bad?

I will however not bring any religious references into this debate as I want it to be strictly scientifical and based on facts.

Looking forward for this debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
blueberry_crepe

Pro

blueberry_crepe forfeited this round.
Fereska

Con

Fereska forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
blueberry_crepe

Pro

blueberry_crepe forfeited this round.
Fereska

Con

Looks like this debate aint going anywhere; nevertheless I will still post some points to my argument that I will hope will encourage you to continue this debate :)

Firstly I would like to put out that taking a genetically superior breed of animals, like sheep for example, and isolate them from the other sheep who have weaker genetics so the weak can breed with the weak and the superior mate with the superior, is not Genetically modifying anything.

Now for my arguments.

Gmos have many long and short term effects, some of which are...


GMOs' toxins


According to a study led by Dr. Judy Carman, " pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets". In addition, male pigs had an increase in sever stomach inflammation by 400%; which basically turned their insides into mush. The study was done on 168 pigs in a normal farm environment, carried out by eight scientists in Australia and The US. Pigs and humans are alike in many ways, mostly in the genetics and organs, according to Dailymail.co.uk.

Which begs the question, if pigs have their insides melted by GMOs, why wont the same happen to people?



I'll start with this argument to get us going in this debate :)



Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.naturalnews.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
blueberry_crepe

Pro

blueberry_crepe forfeited this round.
Fereska

Con

Fereska forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
blueberry_crepe

Pro

blueberry_crepe forfeited this round.
Fereska

Con

Fereska forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Combz 3 years ago
Combz
Also, it's getting harder and harder for farmers to tell if a fruit or veggie is genetically modified, and they can infect their fields unknowingly. People can be eating "organic" laballed foods and not known it is somewhat genetically modified. Giving space for lawsuits and things of that nature. Anyways, that is just my comments on the subject :)
Posted by Combz 3 years ago
Combz
GMO's are considered man-made and/or a abomination to nature/God since it defies natural law. Being equivalent to the debates on cloneing and mutations, any opposition you encounter will most likely come from a religious and/or environmentalist person who see's nature/God to be the intendor of things, not humans. Even if it relates to plants, not just animals (if you are atheist then animals also includes you; vice versa if you are religious, then what I'm referring to is human cloneing).

On my side, I am neutral on the debate as I am comfortable with eating a GMO food but would rather eat natural foods (for me personally, not speaking on behalf of a larger purpose as in saying that "GMO's should not be produced by any company") as I am for sure that there are no side affects that come from eating natrual foods (compared to GMO foods). The reason why GMO's were created was to increase product efficiency (making the crops bigger), to be resistant to food borne diseases (so the customer dosn't die by eating it), and resistant to bugs (so that more crops are spared from the hungry mouths of insects, effectively increasing product count, meaning more money for business). I'm not surprised that businesses created GMO's (because in a free market competition is crazy and companies will do anything out of the norm to make more money) and I don't really care about my stance on them; as long as they are not doing harm to human or enivormantal health, I'm content. But as I said earlier, I prefer natural grown foods from my home garden, for the assurance of nature's best ;)

Also, the are some fundamental controversies on GMO's that get my attention. Like the growing epidemic of GMO's foods crossbreading with natural food fields, infecting a organic farmer's field with GMO fruits and veggies. This has devastating effects on farmers since they have to replant everything to rid themselves of the invading foods. This really puts financial strain on them as well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
blueberry_crepeFereskaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's the only one who actually posted an argument, so he wins.