The Instigator
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
FreedomHawk
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Secrete Topic Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 6 votes the winner is...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,043 times Debate No: 43744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

A few things to know before this debate round begins:

1) There will be four rounds of this debate

2) The voting period will be one month

3) We will each have 72 hours to debate each round

4) We will be allotted 10,000 characters for each round

5) First round for acceptance

6) Second round I will anounce the full resolution and then both Pro and Con will present their cases

7) Third round for rebuttals

8) Fourth round will be for voting issues

9) No use of profanity will be allowed

10) Forfeit will equal a 7 point loss on that persons' side



If you accept you will agree with all the things noted. If you have a problem with any of the above say so in comments.
FreedomHawk

Con

Original and sounds fun. I accept the challenge : )
Debate Round No. 1
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro



Time to announce the full resolutin!
Full resolution: Approve GMO Salmon in the United States.

Fear of the unknown blocks many from achieving great things. Worse than that is when we insist that something well-known is still unknown and we allow it to continue to frighten us. The benefits of turning from ignorance to science compel me to affirm that The United States federal government should substantially reform its marine natural resource policies.




Observation 1. My Definitions:




Marine Natural Resources: Genevieve Anderson, last revised in 2009. http://www.marinebio.net...




“Physical marine natural resources include products from the ocean as well as the ocean itself.”




Substantial: “considerable in quantity : significantly great” (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2013, http://www.merriam-webster.com...




Reform: “to put or change into an improved form or condition”(Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2013, http://www.merriam-webster.com...)




Policy: “a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body” (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2013, http://www.merriam-webster.com...)




Observation 2. The current conditions of the Status Quo. One simple fact: 18 years of waiting for genetically modified salmon, with no end in sight.




Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news 2013




http://www.cbc.ca...




AquaBounty began seeking American approval in 1995. "Eighteen-plus years" said AquaBounty's David Conley with a joyless chuckle. "It's a moving target. We just have no idea. AquaBounty has submitted all the scientific data the FDA has requested of it. And in significant preliminary findings last year, the FDA said approving the AquaBounty fish "would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment in the United States," or on American salmon stocks. But then it went and extended the public comment process all over again. In an email to CBC News this week, the FDA's Theresa Eisenman said "it is not possible to predict a timeline for when these decisions will be made.




Observation 3. My Plan:




1. The Monday after an Affirmative ballot, the Food & Drug Administration approves AquaBounty salmon for sale in the United States.
2. Enforcement through normal means.
3. All Affirmative speeches may clarify as needed.




Observation 4. The Advantages:


Advantage 1. Reduced heart disease:




Poor people would eat more fish. Availability of genetically modified salmon would lower the price and motivate lower-income people to eat more fish - and that’s good for public health




Dr. Davide Menozzi, Prof. Cristina Mora, and Alberto Merigo 2012. http://www.agbioforum.org...




Acceptance of GM salmon might increase if consumers identify more personal benefits than benefits to the business sector. Human health benefits from improved nutrition (higher n-3 fatty acid intake) may result from higher consumption of fish driven by a lower market price. In particular, the price reduction could stimulate fresh (GM) salmon consumption in low-income households susceptible to conditions linked to poor nutrition thus, GM salmon consumption may have high marginal benefits to public health.




Reduced deaths from heart disease. N-3 Fatty Acids from fish reduce cardiovascular death.




Dr. J. L. Breslow 2006. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




The results of prospective cohort studies indicate that consuming fish or fish oil containing n-3 fatty acids is associated with decreased cardiovascular death, the American Heart Association recommends that everyone eat oily fish twice per week




Advantage 2. Biotech jobs. Our plan prevents offshoring US biotech jobs.




Companies will leave. The salmon saga proves that we can’t allow political decisions to block biotech development in the US. If we do, biotech companies will move offshore.




Alison L. Van Eenennaam, Prof. William Muir & Prof. Eric Hallerman 2013 http://www.seafoodsource.com... (contains a link to download the PDF file that contains the quote below)




Key GE animal innovations — including, but not limited to, the example of the AquAdvantage® salmon presented above — have languished in regulatory review from years to more than a decade. Regulatory inaction has the consequences of threatening not only these particular products, but animal biotechnology more generally.
V. IMPACT OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Again, in the words of Dr. Calestous Juma: “It is imperative that the United States stay the course it has set in not letting politics interfere with its science-based regulatory system that is truly the envy of the world.” If the United States fails to provide a regulatory path to market for beneficial biotechnologies,research and development of these innovations will move to countries with more predictable policy.




At least 200,000 jobs at risk




National Center on Education and the Economy 2006. http://www.jff.org...




In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 1,444 US firms narrowly defined as engaged in biotechnology, employing close to 200,000 people. Other estimates, using a broader definition of “biotech,” put employment as high as 885,000. Biotech jobs pay roughly $26,600 more than the overall national average private sector wage. Biotech firms are very research-intensive, spending roughly a third of their budgets on R&D, compared to the US corporate average of around 4 percent.




Advantage 3. Environmental benefits. Genetically engineered fish promote sustainable fish supply




Alison L Van Eenennaam & William M Muir 2011 http://ucanr.org...




Wild-caught fish deplete the oceanic stocks and do not present a long-term, ecologically sustainable solution to rising global fish demand. One of the benefits associated with the development of GE fish for aquaculture may well be in helping to reduce recognized pressure on wild fish populations.




Advantage 4. New technologies. Approving GE salmon means we stop blocking the development of additional new technologies that would benefit mankind




Alison L Van Eenennaam & William M Muir 2011 http://ucanr.org...




The current regulatory approach in the United States, coupled with the unpredictable time frame, has stymied commercial investment in the development of GE animals for agricultural applications. The abuse of good-faith attempts to increase transparency and enable public participation in the GE animal regulatory process, coupled with political efforts to prohibit the FDA from regulating GE AquAdvantage salmon as it approaches the close of its protracted regulatory journey, are unlikely to have reassured potential investors. This outcome may jeopardize future access to improved genetic lines resulting from new technological developments (e.g., disease-resistant GE animals), with negative consequences on food security and other broadly supported societal goals, including improved human and animal health.





Conclusion: Moving forward




We need to stop letting the fear of the unknown block us from achieving great things, we need to move America on to continue to make great things and have great idea ideas for our future.

FreedomHawk

Con

FreedomHawk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

Aw, it seems as if my opponent has forfeited, new case on my part too. All my points still stand. A few times it has been mentioned that this debate is unfair and I have stacked or n00b swiped my opponent, because of these statements and doubts I have been called upon I would like to clarify the reasons why this debate has so far been ethical.



1) He accepted this debate in the first place.



2) He knew this was a secrete topic.



3) I did not invite him to this debate he accepted this debate as a whole.



4) He most likely assumed that since I am 14 I cannot think of good debate resolutions and arguments.



5) He did not research me and find out what I like to debate.



6) I started this debate as Pro, that logically concludes Con would be Con to this debate resolution that I have chosen.



7) This debate is obviously not about ‘Kittens vs. Puppies’, it doesn’t mean this resolution is any less valid then ‘Kittens vs. Puppies’ would have been.



8) The caricature limit was set to 10.000. That should have been a hint that this wasn’t a silly little girl topic.




I will now advocate my plan with the following two advantages that I could not fit into my constructive speech:



Advantage 1: Farmed salmon contains omega-3 fatty acid. Which is recommended by the American Heart Association.


American Heart Association. Last updated May 6,2013.


http://www.heart.org...#


Some fish species have higher omega-3 fatty acid content than others, some farmed fish can have


higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid than wild fish, and vice versa. The omega-3 fatty acid content of


wild fish can vary by the temperature of their environment (i.e., higher during the summer than


winter), while the omega-3 fatty acid content of farmed fish can vary based on what they are


fed. Regardless of the difference, the American Heart Association recommends eating fish at least


twice a week, especially species high in omega-3 fatty acid such as salmon, mackerel, herring and


trout, regardless of whether they are wild or farmed.



Advantage 2: Approving AquAdvantage salmon would provide environmental and economic benefits.


Dr. Ronald L. Stotish Dec 15 2011 “Environmental


Risks of Genetically Engineered Fish” http://www.gpo.gov...


The United States currently imports more than 97 percent of the Atlantic salmon consumed from countries like Chile, Norway, Canada, Scotland, and the Faroe Islands. Conventional aquaculture produces Atlantic salmon in sea cages, a practice that has a variety of environmental, ecological, and economic consequences. The availability of a more rapidly growing Atlantic salmon, for example, the AquAdvantage salmon, could facilitate land-based cultivation of this species, much like trout, catfish, and tilapia, reducing the cost and environmental impact of transportation, as well as reducing the environmental consequences of sea cage cultivation. In sum, the AquAdvantage salmon, when approved, would in all likelihood, approve the sustainability of salmon aquaculture, reduce imports, and create an opportunity for economic development in the United States.




Now I would like to go over my previously stated fact, plan, and advantages:



Fact: 18 years of waiting for genetically modified salmon, with no end in sight.



Plan: 1. The Monday after an Affirmative ballot, the Food & Drug Administration approves AquaBounty salmon for sale in the United States.


2. Enforcement through normal means.


3. All affirmative speeches may clarify as needed.



Advantage 1:Reduced heart disease


The Link: Poor people would eat more fish. Availability of genetically modified salmon would lower the price and motivate lower-income people to eat more fish – which is good for public health.


The Impact: Reduced deaths from heart disease. N-3 Fatty Acids from fish reduce cardiovascular death.



Advantage 2. Biotech jobs are saved.


The Link: Companies will leave. The salmon saga proves that we can’t allow political decisions to block biotech development in the US. If we do, biotech companies will move offshore.


The Impact: At least 200,000 jobs at risk.



Advantage 3: Environmental benefits.



Advantage 4: New technologies. Approving GE salmon means we stop blocking the development of additional new technologies that would benefit mankind.



Thank you for spending time in your life to read this. I urge you to vote pro after what I have just showed you: why this debate is ethical, extra advantages that I couldn’t fit into the 10.000 caricature limit of my constructive speech, and a recap of the point, plan, and advantages I have previously brought up.



May the odds be ever in your favor. –The Hunger Games



I hope Con gets back to this debate and makes it more interesting to debate instead of debating doubts and statements brought up, advocating my plan by bringing up things that I couldn’t fit in with the max limit of 10,000, and recapping the things I have previously brought up in my constructive.



Thanks again.


-Rebekah (:

FreedomHawk

Con

Arguments :

ecological concerns :

Genetically modified salmon, like all GM products have the problem of gene flow. in other words it means that humans eating transgenic salmon can (in the long term), become affected by the transgenic products they are eating, but also other species, which eat or are eaten by salmons.

Risks on human health : Actually it is true they are unknown, but it is still not proved that there are no concrete risks on human health. And we cannot allow and, and take the risks to endanger lives .

http://www.csa.com......

http://www.gmo-compass.org......

ethical concern :

Does greediness allow us to transform and deeply modify the natural life. Can we transform life to be more profitable?
And what is the limit to all of this? If we start to allow this, where will it ends? Modified humans?

Rebuttal :

Reduced heart disease:

Saying that poor people would it more fish, even with lower prices, is only a vague suposition. Having an healthy living standart doesn't depend only on prices, but mostly on education. Furthermore we don't have proof that GM salmon would be healthy at all. Even with higher N-3 fatty acids intake, we still don't know the consequenced of GM food on human body

Biotech jobs :

Right, but allowing GM salmon would destroy a lot of jobs in the research sector, because usually before approving something, we use to wait for scientist's approval, and for proofs that it is not dangerous. So if we allow it yet, there will be a lower priority on research
Debate Round No. 3
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

“Genetically modified salmon, like all GM products have the problem of gene flow. in other words it means that humans eating transgenic salmon can (in the long term), become affected by the transgenic products they are eating, but also other species, which eat or are eaten by salmons.”

“Actually it is true they are unknown, but it is still not proved that there are no concrete risks on human health. And we cannot allow and, and take the risks to endanger lives.”

Both sentences contradict. If it’s unknown it’s unknown, then we can’t say it will endanger lives.


Does greediness allow us to transform and deeply modify the natural life. Can we transform life to be more profitable? And what is the limit to all of this? If we start to allow this, where will it ends? Modified humans?

Uh, I’m sorry but I don’t think that approving something has any ethical value. We are not basing the decision of approving salmon on a theocracy, this isn’t exactly a religious discussion, it’s a debate on if we should approve GE fish…

There is no greediness involved; we are helping with heart disease.


“Saying that poor people would it more fish, even with lower prices, is only a vague suposition. Having an healthy living standart doesn't depend only on prices, but mostly on education. Furthermore we don't have proof that GM salmon would be healthy at all. Even with higher N-3 fatty acids intake, we still don't know the consequenced of GM food on human body”

Okay, so if we have more of something doesn’t it logically conclude it would be cheaper?

FDA Study: modified salmon are not dangerous to humans

http://www.komonews.com...

Federal health regulators say a genetically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as normal is unlikely to harm the environment, clearing the way for the first approval of a genetically engineered animal for human consumption. The Food and Drug Administration on Friday released its environmental assessment of the AquaAdvantage salmon, a faster-growing fish which has been subject to a contentious, years long debate at the agency. The document concludes that the fish "will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States."

FDA Study: Food from AquAdvantage salmon is the same as any Atlantic salmon. No risk to

humans

Dr. Ronald L. Stotish 2011. (President & CEO, AquaBounty Technologies, Inc.; developers of the

salmon) testimony before U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries & Coast Guard, 15 Dec 2011 “Environmental

Risks of Genetically Engineered Fish”

http://www.commerce.senate.gov...

The FDA’s center for veterinary medicine has concluded that the AquAdvantage salmon, in addition

to being indistinguishable from Atlantic salmon, is an Atlantic salmon, and that the food from AquAdvantage salmon is the same as food from any other Atlanticsalmon.CVM has determined that the genetic change does not harm the fish, and is safe for the consuming public. It’s also determined that the data and the information we have provided, as well as the conditions and controls we propose to implement, that would be required upon approval of any application, provide meaningful assurance that the AquAdvantage salmon are not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment in the United States or in foreign countries.


Biotech jobs :

“Right, but allowing GM salmon would destroy a lot of jobs in the research sector, because usually before approving something, we use to wait for scientist's approval, and for proofs that it is not dangerous. So if we allow it yet, there will be a lower priority on research”

Um, I’m pretty sure that’s not true. As I’ve shown in previous evidence brought up in this round that the FDA has run tests on this salmon, we are now waiting for approval. AquaAdvantage has had 18 years of waiting for this to be approved! I’m sure it has had its fair share of testing. Also, when anything has been approved research sectors, think tanks, and other groups don’t just shut down, they have plenty of other products they are testing and they have possibilities for new ones.

Voting points:

1) Reduced heart disease:

2) Biotech jobs.

3) Environmental benefits.

4) New technologies.

5) Breaking rules in forfeit.

FreedomHawk

Con

Voting points :

1) We don't have proofs that GM food is not dangerous

2) GM products surely affect other species

3) Research jobs

4) I had to impersonate an environmentalist leftie in a debate about a topic i don't know anything about ^^
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Number 4 isn't a reason for voting for you! ;)
Posted by FreedomHawk 3 years ago
FreedomHawk
Forget about it, my argument has actually been published ^^
Posted by FreedomHawk 3 years ago
FreedomHawk
Ok I don't know what happened i just wanted to post my round 5, there was still 5 hours left and when i wanted to publish it i've been told we are no more on the challenging period..^^

So I'm posting it here lol

Voting points :

1) We don't have proofs that GM food is not dangerous

2) GM products surely affect other species

3) Research jobs

4) I had to impersonate an environmentalist lefty in a debate about a topic I don't know anything about ^^
Posted by FreedomHawk 3 years ago
FreedomHawk
ecological concerns :

Genetically modified salmon, like all GM products have the problem of gene flow. in other words it means that humans eating transgenic salmon can (in the long term), become affected by the transgenic products they are eating, but also other species, which eat or are eaten by salmons.

Risks on human health : Actually it is true they are unknown, but it is still not proved that there are no concrete risks on human health. And we cannot allow and, and take the risks to endanger lives .

http://www.csa.com...

http://www.gmo-compass.org...

ethical concern :

Does greediness allow us to transform and deeply modify the natural life. Can we transform life to be more profitable?
And what is the limit to all of this? If we start to allow this, where will it ends? Modified humans?
Posted by FreedomHawk 3 years ago
FreedomHawk
I am really really sorry!
I wanted to answer yesterday but it was one hour too late(I was traveling all the day).
I want to say that I didn't refuse the debate, don't think it is unfair, and even less despised you because of your age.

I now will try to make up for this. I will right now post my first argument on the comment thread (it's better than nothing). And will right now post my second one !
I hope you'll forgive me ^^
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
He's con because his position is con. If I started the debate as con he would be pro.
Posted by msheahan99 3 years ago
msheahan99
This is a good idea, but when the topic is posted you should let the person who accepted choose whether they are for or against the topic, otherwise you could be forced to debate about cats and dogs and you'd be forced to debate in favor of cats.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 3 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Can I forfeit if I cannot argue the motions?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SPENCERJOYAGE14FreedomHawkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had vastly superior arguments and superior sources. Pro loses conduct for not spelling secret correctly on several occasions
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
SPENCERJOYAGE14FreedomHawkTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to pro for no FF's. Forgiveness to Con for still participating through the comments. I didn't like the idea of Secret Topic. It really gave an unfair advantage to pro, and resulted in a clearly one sided debate. But in the end, I found that the uncertainty in its affects, caused me to give source points to Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
SPENCERJOYAGE14FreedomHawkTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. I'm aware the rules said that all 7 go in the case of a forfeit, but I would like to read the debate in its entirety before doing something like that...the conduct is a definite and clear point, so I'll award it. Pro, just as a heads up, your posts are VERY spread out, makes it a bit more of a chore to read. If I do get a chance to thoroughly read it, I'll score the rest. On a non-points-side-point, I just wanted to say that I like Pro's Pinkie-with-a-chainsaw avvie.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
SPENCERJOYAGE14FreedomHawkTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: PROTEST VOTE: Pro you were unclear when you were quoting a source, which had the dead giveaway of all the different paragraph styles. Quotation marks, and usually italics are best (they may also be indented via bullets, the normal indent command is broken). Quotes being the vast majority of your case, I find that you are unable to win arguments. However you did a great job on the research. S&G was a little rough at times, but not enough to cost anything.... This vote will not shift things, but it will stand as a warning about behavior comparable to plagiarism; to hopefully avoid the real problem that would come with that. As things stand, your case is a little too close to Gish Galloping.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
SPENCERJOYAGE14FreedomHawkTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, made good points/arguments and stayed on point. So Pro gets points for conduct and convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
SPENCERJOYAGE14FreedomHawkTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought pro had significantly better arguments that were more detailed. Also, con forfeited a round, so he loses conduct.