The Instigator
Topaet
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Dunavice
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is genetically modified food harmful (con) or helpful (pro)?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Topaet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 101566
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Topaet

Pro

Harmful in this context = causing harm to humans.
Helpful in this context = making life easier or better for humans.

Rules:
1. Provide evidence for your arguments.
2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies.
3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate, the second for the opening arguments, the third for rebuttals, and the fourth for closing statements. The fourth round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments.
4. Do not forfeit.
Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules.
Good luck and have fun in the debate!
Dunavice

Con

I accept this debate on the basis that you provide definitions in your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Pro

Genetically modified foods = foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

1. They are healthier than their non-genetically modified counterparts:
[1],[3],[4],[5],[6] There is a scientific consensus, that genetically modified foods are not harmful.
[1],[2],[10] The research that has been conducted in studies with animals and on chemical composition of GE foods reveals no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterparts.
[1] There is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefits to human health by reducing insecticide poisonings and decreasing exposure to fumonisins.

2. They reduce the need for pesticides and insecticides:
[1] There is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefits to human health by reducing insecticide poisonings and decreasing exposure to fumonisins.
[7] A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.
[8] The introduction of Bt crops during the period between 1996 and 2005 has been estimated to have reduced the total volume of insecticide active ingredient use in the United States by over 100 thousand tons. This represents a 19.4% reduction in insecticide use.

3. Genetically modified foods can produce higher crop yields:
[7] A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had increased crop yields by 22%.
[9] Yields increased 9% for herbicide tolerance and 25% for insect resistant varieties.

4. They increase farmer profits:
[7] A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had increased farmer profits by 68%.
[9] Farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not.

Sources:
[1]: https://www.nap.edu...
[2]: https://www.nap.edu...
[3]: http://www.agrobio.org...
[4]: http://www.fao.org...
[5]: http://www.who.int...
[6]: http://www.pewinternet.org...
[7]: http://journals.plos.org...
[8]: https://www.ars.usda.gov...
[9]: http://www.economist.com...
[10]: http://ec.europa.eu...
Dunavice

Con

Genetically modified foods = foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.

1. They are healthier than their non-genetically modified counterparts:
[1],[3],[4],[5],[6] There is a scientific consensus, that genetically modified foods are not harmful.
[1],[2],[10] The research that has been conducted in studies with animals and on chemical composition of GE foods reveals no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterparts.
[1] There is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefits to human health by reducing insecticide poisonings and decreasing exposure to fumonisins.

2. They reduce the need for pesticides and insecticides:
[1] There is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefits to human health by reducing insecticide poisonings and decreasing exposure to fumonisins.
[7] A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.
[8] The introduction of Bt crops during the period between 1996 and 2005 has been estimated to have reduced the total volume of insecticide active ingredient use in the United States by over 100 thousand tons. This represents a 19.4% reduction in insecticide use.

3. Genetically modified foods can produce higher crop yields:
[7] A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had increased crop yields by 22%.
[9] Yields increased 9% for herbicide tolerance and 25% for insect resistant varieties.

4. They increase farmer profits:
[7] A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had increased farmer profits by 68%.
[9] Farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not.

Sources:
[1]: https://www.nap.edu......
[2]: https://www.nap.edu......
[3]: http://www.agrobio.org......
[4]: http://www.fao.org......
[5]: http://www.who.int......
[6]: http://www.pewinternet.org......
[7]: http://journals.plos.org......
[8]: https://www.ars.usda.gov......
[9]: http://www.economist.com......
[10]: http://ec.europa.eu......

Checkmate, scientard.
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Pro

My opponent first copied my whole opening argument and then, unfortunately, had to resort to ad hominem attacks against me.
This is against the rules (2 and 3).

Please report my opponent for "Insulting Other Member(s)".
I presume that he will not reply any further so I would like to thank every viewer and recommend that you check out the sources from my opening argument and form your own opinion.
Dunavice

Con

I'd like to see you argue against the science of GMOs, or anything else that's already been proven. This is why I hate debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Topaet

Pro

I am sorry, but I posted this debate in the "Science" section so you should have expected scientific evidence.

At least you changed your view on GMOs now...
Dunavice

Con

It seems like you've mistaken me. Debating against the science of GMOs is like debating against the fact that humans need water to survive. Hope that analogy clears up some confusion.

And looking at some of the other debates you've started, ("Are Islam and Islamic culture immoral?") you tend to present vague and meaningless information with no apparent objective to be reached. This is also something I've noticed among many of the debaters here. I'd like to know what you get out of your whole agenda, being factually sound, and all.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
@Capitalistslave Tell that to the debates that have an infinite voting period.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Also, pro, why did you make the voting period 180 days? There is literally no reason for that. After a few weeks this debate will be so far back in the voting period list that no one will bother to look for it and vote on it. I just don't see why you need such a long voting period man
Posted by Topaet 1 year ago
Topaet
Thank you.
Posted by debate1616 1 year ago
debate1616
I would debate with you except I am for GMO's, but there is a problem since you don't have 4 rounds, just to let you know.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
TopaetDunaviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con resorted to Ad Hominems, while Pro produced actual arguments. Hence, Pro gets the "convincing arguments" points. Pro provided reliable sources, while Con provided no sources. Con's Ad Hominem constitutes poor conduct. Neither made any grammar errors so far as I noticed.
Vote Placed by Canada98 1 year ago
Canada98
TopaetDunaviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
TopaetDunaviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
TopaetDunaviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con just copied pro's arguments and violated one of the rules about no ad hominem usage when they called pro a "scientard" in round 2 Convincing arguments: Con provided no arguments that supported their position and essentially conceded the debate to pro since they copied their arguments. Sources: Pro used sources from scientific and educational websites, which are usually reliable and they supported pro's arguments well. Con used the same sources, but they don't support their side of the argument, which was the con position.