Should we ban GMOs?
Debate Rounds (5)
Now I will introduce the rules for my unknown opponent.
-Rebuttal+Opening statement(containing Argument 1)
-Main Rebuttal 1+Free debate
-Main Rebuttal+Closing Statement
I would also like to ask my opponent what they mean by "Argument One""" in their "rules for my unknown opponent." Do you perhaps mean that I should only provide one argument, or many arguments, and call them "Argument OneA311;""" Thank you. Feel free to specify this is your next round. For your purpose, I will only include one argument.
For those of you that don't know what a GMO is, it means to make a plant better, by implanting genes into it to make it grow faster or have resistance to herbicides.
Your general statement is correct: GMOs can be a solution for the food issues between the rich and the poor. Developed nations really DO get more food than those that are still developing. But will GMOs really solve this problem? Think about it. In this round, I will be using Haiti as an example for an undeveloped countryz90;I don't mean to offend anyone out there; it is actually an undeveloped nation/country according to www.nationsonline.org. While some of the country is developed, and the capital has some wealth, much of the country is suffering from poverty and many are homeless. According to Jennifer Schmidt, a farmer in Maryland, GMOs cost approximately two times more than normal foods. And, yes, GMOs do not need you to spray herbicides all over them, or pesticides either. It does reduce cost a little bit, but it total, GMO foods do cost much more than non-GMOs. It is obvious that most non-developed countries want something that makes their people full, but costs less. Unfortunately, GMOs cost much more than non-GMO foods (one of the sad facts of life). This makes it very unlikely that these undeveloped countries would be using regular foods than Non GMOs. The GMOs will not make a difference in the lives of these people.
Message before Argument:
Unlike most people who would be debating against you, my arguments will rarely, if ever, be biased or loosely based on rumors. Therefore, I will not make any arguments about how GMOs cause autism or that crap, because there is no evidence behind it. I would also like to ask if you could make your arguments as specific and with as much reliable information as possible. Could you also cite your sources if it is possible. If your argument is based mostly or completely on opinion, then you don't have any need to cite it, although I have the ability to question your opinion or someone else's.
Think about one of the main uses of GMOs in plants: they are not harmed by herbicides, but they grow quicker. These genes are taken from specific animals and implanted into the plants. That's all well and good, and help the food industries. But have you ever thought about what would happen with GMOs in a harmful weed, or a plant that has no effective use? What would happen if these genes got into one of these plants? You might be saying: "That would never happen!" But that is not true. While no scientist in their right minds would willingly implant these genes into a harmful plant, there is a possibility: cross pollination. What if a wheat that happened to be a GMO found a weed that was distantly related? If they were related to each other enough, they could create weeds that were annoying, but at the same time, resisted herbicides and grew incredibly quickly? That reason is something that has been debated for a long time. Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Well, before my main argument I can't understand your rebuttal of my argument. You actually agreed with me in the rebuttal. My purpose of my argument was that GMOs are not the solution of the food problem. Also you are arguing the same statement in your argument.
Also, like your example country Haiti GMO foods are more expensive than non-GMO foods.
Instead of making a lot of GMOs solving the poverty problem is the solution of food problems.
This was my rebuttal of your argument.
Now I will post my second argument.
Second, there are hidden side effects of GMOs. GMOs basically remix with other creature's DNA. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick identified the DNA structure. Also, in 1971, science technology was able to amputate the DNA base.
In 1973, in additon, it was able to make a gene recombinant Salmonella bacteria. It took less than 200 years of history of GMO. These GMOs can have a hidden side effects that we didn't know.
Not discovered isn't equal with Not existing
I am stupid
Alright, even though I argued for the wrong side, I won't forfeit, like 90% of the poor schmucks who debate here. Instead, I will continue to argue against you; after all, there are still four speeches left for me to give, right? However, if you use any of my arguments against me, the round automatically goes to me, and I will not address them in the following speech. Likewise, I will not use your own facts against you. Judges, while I know that it is inevitable that you might bias me for this accident, I ask you to look at both sides as fairly as possible. I sincerely apologize to both the judges and the debater.
Rebuttal: You said that "there are hidden side effects of GMOs." You gave much evidence, but did not cite your source. Could you give me this source in case I want to look at it? I would also like to address the fact that modern day scientists know of this discovery. This is the reason why they test GMOs for such a long time. "For each potential GM product, in order to demonstrate safety, research teams conduct years of field trials and comprehensive testing to be scientifically certain the new trait and genetic modification have not changed the safety of the crop." This quote was by Michael Koch, who specializes in Toxicology. The average time that GMOs are tested are approximately eight years. Many GMOs have already been discovered, but are still in testing.
But before I do any of my first arguments, I would like to ask my opponent something. Your standpoint in the debate is this: "GMOs should be banned." When GMOs reduce the gap in the food issue that you mentioned, does that mean that they should be banned? No. Rather the opposite, in fact. If it keeps world peace and solves a long-debated food issue, then shouldn't it be kept? Perhaps that is what made me confused, and why I argued against the wrong side. Could you please specify or address this in the next speech? I am still really confused as to what happened there.
First of all, I would like to say this: GMOs are safe, despite what many people might think about them. Bill Gates, who did many more hours of research than I did on this subject, finally came to the conclusion: GMOs cannot harm people, unless they are produced incorrectly, and/or not used correctly.
GMOs also make harvesting and growing crops and organisms two times as efficient. Genetically modifying organisms can benefit in many different ways: plants can use water far more efficiently, grow quicker, and do not require pesticides or herbicides. Would things be easier with GMOs? Of course. Take for example, the drought in the United States(2012). There was a several month-long drought, which withered many crops across the nation, and cost US farmers tons of money. In fact, the total cost of it was 18 billion dollars, according to Monsanto Company. Could a crop that was resistant to drought and was able to use water efficiently offset this damage caused to the United States? It is very likely, in fact. While GMOs cost slightly more than regular crops, the price of the GMOs are nothing compared to the cost that the farmers had to pay.
For the fluent debate, I will answer your question first before the rebuttal.
You said tat 'When GMOs reduce the gap in the food issue, it means that GMOs should not be banned.'
Right. But I was stating the different thing. From my argument, 'GMO can be a solution for the food issues. However, the main problem of the food issues are the gap between the rich and poor.' It says that main problem of the food issues are reducing the gap between the rich and poor. Therefore, I was arguing the right side.
Now I will answer your rebuttal.
Well, thank you for keep on debating even though you made a mistake.
First,http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... is the source for the history of GMOs.
Second, scientists tested GMO for a long amount of time, but becuase GMOs' history is short, it have possibilities of additional side effects. Even though GMOs are safe, according to the study in Canada found that part of the gene found in Roundup ready soy was found in 95% of pregnant women. The toxin was found in 83% of unborn fetuses of these women. The source of the Bt toxin found in these women and fetuses was determined to be the consumption of animal products that had been fed GM corn.
Humans can have secondhand detrimental impact on GM crops.
My rebuttal :
GMOs still have question on securtiy problems. According to the study of Dr. Judy Carman the professor at Flinders University, GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. The research results were striking and statistically significant.
This research is noteworthy because the pigs were the subject of the research. We eat pigs.
Also, pigs have a similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.
Now moving on to my main point.
Finally, GMOs breaks the law of nature. In 2007, March, India,10,000 sheeps were dead because they ate GM cotton leaf. GMOs causes extremely detrimental impact on animals, and human can have secondhand harm by eating those animals infected by GM crops. 15% of GMOs are insect resistance if animals eat these crops it could be extremely detrimental.
First of all, I would like to quote my opponent: "Even though GMOs are safe, according to the study in Canada found that part of the gene found in Roundup ready soy was found in 95% of pregnant women. The toxin was found in 83% of unborn fetuses of these women." Perhaps you might be talking about the Monsanto incident in which the packaging was misplaced, and put into the wrong product? In that case, I don't think that the GMOs are at fault here, but the blame is to put in the workers who were unable to make the GMO product correctly.
I would like to ask: Are we getting harmful effects because we are eating the GM-fed Pigs? I wonder if you are using actual evidence, or an educated guess, because I was unable to find the sources for it. Could you please specify about this in your next speech? Are the harmful effects passing on from the pig to the human, or is this harmful effect some other variable? I await your answer in the next speech. Also, I believe that I said that the studying time for GMOs are about 8 years. Don't you think that all these harmful effects would be noticed at least once during this long duration of time? Granted, it is possible that they missed something, but these details are obviously too large to miss. Perhaps this may be a massive coincidence, or the people in the survey had different habits that created this anomaly.
However, I can't deny the fact that the deaths of the 10,000 sheep in India was a mystery, and was probably caused by the GMOs. In that case, I believe that GMOs MUST be safer and have many more safeguards. However, this one tragedy cannot be the one event that will ban all GMOs. But have you given a rebuttal to my arguments stating that GMOs could help our economy and create more food? Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see any rebuttal to those. Could you please tell me in the next round, or give an argument for them?
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Anyways first, you said that in the Canada study was about Monsanto incident in which packaging was misplaced, and put into the wrong product. But, there are much more studies that shows that GMOs are dangerous. Supporters of GMOs claim that these pesticides are broken down in the digestive process and pass from the body without causing harm. Studies in the UK have found that this is not true and that pesticides produced by GM crops survive the digestion process. A large 2012 Chinese study found that not only does plant microRNA survive, it causes human cell damage.
Therefore, it is not just a problem of workers who are making GMO products. GMO itself actually causes human cell damage.
Second, I will specify more about 'GM-fed pigs' This is the source.
So the idea of this 'GM-fed pigs' are that carnivores, and humans who eat that pigs can get an impact of the GM-fed pigs.
Not even pigs, GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation.
Third, I wasn't meaning that arguing GMO banning just because of the sheeps' death. Like your argument, in 2007, it is quite a long time ago, and in today many thing changed. However, it is impossible to have safeguards in every GMO farms.
Even we finally succeed that it is impossbile to prevent animal's death because of GMOs that mankind made. Why?
GMOs and normal nature crops have none of the differences when we see just with our eyes, or an animal eye. Thus, GM crops have possibilities to be mixed with nature crops in the nature. This will ruin the nature, and the ecosystem.
Finally, my opponent said that GMOs have positive effects on economy. However, $200 million was invested in creating Flavr Savr, and almost non of the investmet was able to be reclaimed. GM crops have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic contamination. Massive failures in Bt Cotton up to 100% in India.
Alright, enough of this BS. I would like to begin my 4th speech with my rebuttals. First of all, in your first informative paragraph, you stated:"Supporters of GMOs claim that these pesticides are broken down in the digestive process and pass from the body without causing harm." But since GMOs have been specially adapted to not use pesticides, how are the pesticides still in the crop? Could you please address this matter in your next speech? Thank you.
Thank you for stating your sources in your second informative paragraph. I was wondering where I could be able to find this information. Also, can poison in the digestive system of an animal be passed to the consumer of that animal? The source that you gave me (Judy Carmen) did not say.
Lastly, you said something about the investments about Flavr Savr. For those of you that don't know, this company is a producer of GM tomatoes. These losses might defile the reputation of the company, but not the GMOs themselves. After all, there are many more companies that produce GM products. You also said that GMOs cost $12 billion for the United States, but there is a different situation in the UK. The UK's GMOs actually have helped their economy, and has gained them $18 billion dollars in farming. The GMOs and their effects are different from place to place, depending on different variables within the country. India is a major example of this. While the UK might be very successful in their GM products, India has had major failures with their GMOs. Most of the time, it is the country's fault, not the GM problem.
Best of luck to you.
Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
As I used to, I will answer your rebuttal.
You said that pesticides are not in crops becuase GMOs are adapted to not use pesticides. However, 15% is insect resistance, 26% is complex traits, and finally herbicide resistance is 59%. Also, we can reduce the use of pesticides, it's not not using pesticides.
In addition, between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer
Second, according to Judy Carman, it says "Second, we used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them. We can infer that GM-fed pigs we eat can have a detrimental effect.
Thirdly, you said that it is a country's fault, not the problem of GMOs, and you told UK as an example. But who cultivate GMO the most? It's United States. If US has a damage on economy because of GMO, then world GMO output will decrease.
This was an idea I wanted to say.
GMOs are increasing and considered as a solution for the food problem. But, as I early mentioned, it has damage on the economy, doesn't really solve the essential problem of food problem which is gap between the rich and poor, could have a hidden side effect that can be detrimental to our body, and finally breaks the law of nature.
If there is a lot of side effects in a technology, it's to dangerous to develop that technology.
This was my last Round 5 speech and best of luck to you, too.
I yield my time, and thank you for reading my arguments.
I would like to say that India, a country that you mentioned, ruins the reputation of GMOs. You said that several incidents happened there, but India is actually a country that uses one of the most GMOs in the world, so there must be at least a couple mistakes there. Also, the UK doesn't use that many GMOs, but it still manages to make a huge profit out of them. One can infer that a country that does well financially can make a really good profit off of GMOs. India, on the other hand, is one of the poorest nations in the world, and we can assume that more GM problems are bound to happen there.
Best of luck to you.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.