The Instigator
courageous
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBR
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should people know about gmo food and the effects on us.

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 2 votes the winner is...
TBR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 74045
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

courageous

Pro

People should know about gmo's because they are really unhealthy. food places should say oh we have gmo's in are food and we don't because we are gmo free because we care about the human race. If you don't understand the problem with gmo's well it's because they aren't truly grown from nature. They have tested gmo's on rats and mice and the females got large tumors.
TBR

Con

While I agree that "[people] Should people know about gmo food and the effects on us." your further resolution imply that GMOs are detrimental.

I accept this argument, con argues that GMOs are not more dangerous than non-gmo or "organic" crops.
Debate Round No. 1
courageous

Pro

courageous forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

Well... A FF round.. Tell you what. I will post what I have worked on, and if you make it back we will go on and ignore your FF. We have five rounds so... No harm, and this will lay out the argument anyway,

Introduction

In an effort to be forthcoming personally, I will say I eat organically raised fruits and vegetables. There are a number of reasons I do and none of them have to do with fear of the safety of GMO foods. It is a true luxury that I live in a country where I am able to have abundance, and a further luxury that I can afford to be so picky. For a good deal of the ever growing population of the planet, my choice is arrogant, and insisting that others should accept limited food for the sake of misplaced fears over GMOs is inhumane.

Let me get some sticky confusing issues out of the way first. Selective breeding, cultivating new plant varieties has been common for thousands of years. While some of the goals are the same, this is NOT the same as what is happening with GMO seeds.

Selective breeding can take many generations. Hybrid seeds can create first generation cross breeds using “natural” methods, however the seeds produced are unusable for generation two. Now, what is GMO doing? This is where people start to get their irrational fears from. GMO is creating the same effect in first generation crossbreeding using very advanced science like gene-splicing. Further, because of the sophistication of the science, they can splice in very different plants that would be impossible to do with normal gardening techniques. A good example is crossing biological kingdoms. The resulting seed may be something like a corn seed that has bacteria components that make the resulting plant resistant to pests using less pesticides.

1) GMO food help feed more people

a) Costs

b) Increased production

c) Food chain

[1] http://biotech.about.com...

Debate Round No. 2
courageous

Pro

My main concern is that people should know whether they are eating foods with GMO's or not. They don't put "GMO" labels on everything, and how do you know whether it's GMO-free when they are not all ways labeled? Foods that contain GMO's might feed more people, but they might also be more likely to make them sick and kill them. The jury is still out on whether GMO's are safe. Because of this, people should know what they are consuming; they have the right to make informed choices. I am only 13, so I don't always get to choose what I eat, but if I could, I would stay away from GMO's even if it meant I had to give up spending money on something else so I could afford food that I am sure is safe.
TBR

Con

I will make this debate much less formal, and just discuss the issue with you.

I don't necessary disagree that I personalty would like to see labeling of GMO products. The problems with that are perception. A good number of people are running on fear with little real solid reason. These foods are not "frainken foods" they are not the work of the devil. If the people working on these crops are impacted negatively solely on misunderstanding and fear, they have a reason to resist labeling.

If I look back at your two posted rounds, one example sticks out. "They have tested gmo's on rats and mice and the females got large tumors.". I know what you are talking about, and without beating the point, it is not that great a finding. GMOs have been feed to livestock for a good amount of time now. Most of the GMO crops are feed crops. The "experiment" in the real world is not producing the terrible results.

My last (conversational) point for this round is about arrogance. We (the rich western countries) truly are arrogant. We get so many choices that a great number of people just don't get. We get to complain about labeling, and how one study said this or that. There are a great and growing number of people on this planet that need these foods to work. They need them to keep from dying. They don't have the luxury of our hyper concerns.
Debate Round No. 3
courageous

Pro

courageous forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

TBR forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
courageous

Pro

courageous forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

GMOs are not some terror from a science lab.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
courageousTBRTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits, sources to Con, refutation of Pro's "experiments" argument which Pro did not address due to forfeiture.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
courageousTBRTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and Con only used sources to back his arguments up.