The Instigator
orangemayhem
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This House would create genetically engineered super-fruit

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...
orangemayhem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,455 times Debate No: 35340
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

orangemayhem

Pro

Sorry for putting conditions on accepting this debate - I hate to do it, but I'm sick of forfeits. So therefore, this debate is only open to people my age or older (17), and only open to those who are 'as good as or better than me'. My apologies to those who do not reach these requirements.

Some conditions:
- This is a semi-troll debate. Therefore, arguments must be logical but can be 'creative'.

- NO FORFEITING (this will lead to 7 points being awarded to the other side).
- Be civil.
- 4 rounds of 6000 characters each.
- 48 hour response time, voting period is a month.

Structure of the debate:
R1 is acceptance and definitions only.

R2 is opening arguments and rebuttal.
R3 is continuation of arguments and further rebuttal.
R4 is final rebuttal and summing up with no new arguments.

Definitions:
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED: having one's genetic material manipulated by humans.
SUPER-FRUIT: fruit which has powers traditionally associated with super-heroes (such as flight, heat vision etc.).

This debate assumes that humanity has become capable of genetically engineering super-fruit.

I look forward to what should be an exceedingly interesting debate.
Citrakayah

Con

I accept this debate most happily.
Debate Round No. 1
orangemayhem

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting, and I'd like to briefly beg them not to forfeit this debate, as another forfeited debate is likely to drive me to the point of suicide.

Substantive I: It would put the fear of God into North Korea
I think that we can all agree that Kim Jong-Un has been getting a bit too big for his boots recently. He's been wondering around, trying to turn nation against nation and brother against brother, in a frankly pitiful attempt to elevate his own status and make up for his own lack of self-esteem. Whilst everyone knows that North Korea are not capable of, or willing to, carry out any of the threats they are dangling over our heads; their constant dominance of the headlines and littering the seas with rockets which could've been constructed by a college reject has become an annoyance and a nuisance. So it is clearly time to show NK that the civilised nations of the West are still the boss. Therefore, we create hordes of genetically-engineered super-fruit, with super-powers, and send them flying across the oceans. The sheer bizarreness of this spectacle, flying oranges and mangos emitting lasers, will create ripples of panic and fear throughout the population of NK. The juxtaposition of a fruit, a common and familiar household object, with potentially dangerous super-powers will make the people of North Korea, and Kim Jong-Un in particular, feel unsafe. They will wonder what bizarre crime against plants will be coming next. And thus we will re-assert our dominance.

Substantive II: They could be used as a more pleasant means of vaccination
Fear of needles, also known as trypanophobia, is extremely common - many people hate needles, and one of the reasons why vaccination rates are low is that injection is the primary means of giving vaccinations. So let's engage in some blue-sky thinking: how could we solve what is clearly a major problem for the world? Give injections through fruit! Assuming that we have the capability to genetically engineer fruit to our will, as provided for by the terms of the resolution, we could create super-fruit that will vaccinate against major diseases when eaten. Fear of fruit is infintely less common than fear of needles, therefore vaccination by fruit is better for humanity than vaccination by needle. Now, I can hear the doubters screaming: "well, why vaccinate by fruit in particular? Why not by chocolate?". Fruit, however, is better for one's health than, for example, ingesting chocolate. Or ingesting needles for that matter, although that would never be advisable (I'd love to see Opposition refute that point). Therefore, we should genetically engineer super-fruit which can vaccinate against major menaces to humanity, as it will lead to higher uptake rates and this will, in turn, create herd immunity.

Substantive III: It would create ORANGE MAYHEM
Picture the scene. Humanity is locked into a bitter war that doesn't appear to be ending any time soon. Somewhere on a field, probably in Canada, the world has been divided between two rival trenches. Our side, however, has the genetically-engineered fruit. We throw sacks of bananas over No Man's Land over to our enemies, and they think that at last we are showing them some compassion. What they don't realise is that these bananas are secretly laced with highly explosive materials, which cause the eater to spontaneously combust upon eating the fruit. Those oranges that came over? Secretly bombs. Through the manipulation of a seemingly normal object, we win humanity's greatest war! This is a somewhat far-fetched example, but my point is this: being able to manipulate fruit to do our bidding opens up entirely new avenues of innovation within the secret services and the military. Nobody expects a fruit to be anything other than... a fruit. If we were able to genetically alter fruit to have new uses in the military (exploding oranges creating orange mayhem, for example), it would be for the benefit of humanity, along with being almost ironically amusing.

Summary of the Second Speech for the Proposition
We have made the first part of our completely impregnable case for the genetic alteration of fruit with super-powers / special qualities and we have demonstrated how these new fruit could be used to alter the balance of global innovation and power for the better.

With that I pass you over to Opposition, who will try and make a case for moving society backwards and not forwards.
Citrakayah

Con

Substantive I: It would put the fear of God into North Korea
Well, first off, it couldn't put the fear of God into North Korea, because it's not God we're talking about, but fruit. Now, I recognize that it may be advatageous to put the fear of oranges into North Korea, but I must remind my opponent that we are not at war with the people of North Korea, or even hostile to the people of North Korea. Rather, they are starving and need food. We are hostile towards the leader of North Korea.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the people of North Korea have little enough food as it is. Do you want to make them afraid to eat an orange out of concern that it may suddenly blow their head off with heat ray vision? I should think not! Rather, let us simply drop large containers of fruit, saying, in Korea, "Gift of the people of the United States of America and South Korea." Problem solved.

Substantive II: Vaccination
While undeniably true, being eaten and then bestowing a vaccine is not a power traditionally associated with super-heroes.

Substantive III: ORANGE MAYHEM
Again, superheroes typically do not cause people to spontaneously combust after they've been eaten. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no superhero has that power.

While it's true that there are other uses of superfruit to fight wars, I must ask, have you seen the Marvel Universe? Every other week New York gets invaded or some sh!t, Galactus attacks, Magneto takes over some random fictional country, et cetera et cetera. Do you want yearly terrorist attacks by angry superfruit? If so, why do you hate America? HAve you always hated America, or is this something new?

Summary of Speech for the Opposition
I have made the first part of my case, which impregnates (?) the impregnable case of my opponent, then implanted an embryo inside of it which proceeded to explode through its chest, at which point aforementioned embryo discussed that the fruit would probably kill us.
Debate Round No. 2
orangemayhem

Pro

Rebuttal I: 'It's not God we're talking about, but
fruit.'
If one takes the story of the Garden of Eden to
have a deep meaning to it, you could argue that God is a fruit. Therefore this
point is invalid.

Rebuttal II: 'We are not hostile to the people of North Korea.'
Technically yes, but given how hostile they are to us, it's necessary to

protect ourselves. [1]

Rebuttal III: 'They are starving and need food.'
Does this North Korean man look malnourished? Your point is knocked down.

[2]

Rebuttal IV: 'Do you want to make them afraid to eat an orange...?'
The masses of North Korea, in general, cannot afford oranges, as they cost 5000
won for just 3. [3] Besides which, oranges are not actually native to Korea,
and have to be imported from the USA, so most North Koreans would probably
prefer to starve than eat an American orange, as that would not be patriotic.

Rebuttal V: 'Being eaten and then bestowing a vaccine is not a power
traditionally associated with superheroes.'

The key word in that sentence is 'traditionally', but the point about
superheroes is that each one is different and their superpowers are often
unique. Therefore, it would be perfectly possible for the fruit to bestow the
vaccine, as it would still be a superpower, just quite a new one.

Rebuttal VI: 'Superheroes typically do not cause people to spontaneously
combust after they've been eaten.'

How do you know that? When was the last time you heard of a superhero being
eaten? That would be a pretty lousy superhero, so we've never seen a superhero
being eaten, so we don't know whether or not one would spontaneously combust
after eating a superhero. Given that superheroes are made of pretty explosive
stuff, they probably would.

Rebuttal VII: 'Do you want yearly terrorist attacks by angry superfruit?'
Pro turns this point. On balance, these would be a good thing, because it would
keep the security forces alert and give them plenty of practice with regards to
how to deal with something more serious, such as a terrorist attack from
al-Qaeda. If, however, we allow these superfruit to reign free we're
essentially giving ourselves even more regular opportunities to practice how we
would deal with such an incident. I'd rather have non-sentient superfruit
launching these attacks than something more organised.

Rebuttal VIII: 'Why do you hate America?'
[4]. Enough said.

Substantive IV: Creating flying vegetables is more eco-friendly than using
aeroplanes

At the moment, under this unenlightened world which Con seeks to defend, if I
wish to get my fruit and vegetables from the depths of Zanzibar (for the sake
of argument), I have to get it flown to me. At the moment, air travel is
incredibly bad for the environment, as it pollutes the air with noxious gases.
So what if we could engineer the fruit to fly itself? That way, I could have my
Zanzibarian (?) peaches without having to hurt the planet in the process. This
would also ensure that we can move food around the world more easily and in a
more eco-friendly fashion. At the time when there are famines in Africa and
certain parts of the world are starving, the ability to cleanly, safely and
efficiently move fruit around the world would be a good thing. And let's
take this thinking even further: who needs aircraft anyway, when one could ride
aboard an oversized flying mango? By allowing the genetic engineering of
superfruit, the possibilities are endless.

Summary of the Third Speech for the Proposition
We have performed an abortion on our case, so that it is no longer pregnant,
and given it a hysterectomy. We've also given it a beautiful new fur coat in
the shape of our fourth substantive.

Back to you, Con!

[1] (first YouTube clip)

[2] http://leonidpetrov.files.wordpress.com...

[3] http://www.mappingwords.com...

[4] (second YouTube clip)

Citrakayah

Con

Citrakayah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
orangemayhem

Pro

I would like to express my condolences to the family of my opponent, as he has clearly just been eaten by a superfruit. Quelle dommage !

There are two key Points of Clash (PoC) in this debate.

PoC1: Do we want to scare North Korea?
Con have attempted to argue that the denizens of NK are all hapless, meaningless incompetents who are incapable of forming an opinion for themselves. If you listen to Con, you'll believe that the population of NK simply wander around, going about their daily business, without even a single stray political thought in their head. If (quite rightly) you listen to Pro, however, you will realise that the fair denizens of NK are all, in fact, desperate maniacs and psycopaths who pose no end of danger to society as a whole. We have provided irrefutable evidence, via YouTube (see [1] in last round), that the people of NK hate America and loathe the West even more. Therefore, we do need to put the fear of God (or fruit, as my opponent is being picky) into them. The way to stop them littering our airspace with more poorly-manufactured yet still slightly dangerous nuclear missiles is to send their children running and screaming with our superfruit. Therefore, Pro wins this point.

PoC2: Would these superfruit serve a useful purpose?
The majority of Pro's case is built upon all the wonderful things we could accomplish through the construction of these superfruit so it is only natural that Con have pitifully attempted to refute this part of our case. Here, however, Pro wins again. We have demonstrated how the use of superfruit for vaccination purposes could create the next level of herd immunity for our generation and the next. Uptake of vaccinations, be they for MMR or seasonal flu, would skyrocket as the whole process would become much simpler, efficient, and ultimately pleasant. Equally, we have demonstrated how the use of superfruit could be used as a resolution to the great military conflicts of our time. We have shown how the use of superfruit would be extremely beneficial, whereas Con have just said ":O you can't do that!", even though the resolution says we can. Therefore Pro takes this point as well.

Pro wins both of the key points of clash in this debate, therefore we're good to go on the superfruit!

On the off-chance that my opponent is still alive, I invite them to post their closing rebuttal and summing up (no new arguments). Ciao!
Citrakayah

Con

Right, I have forfeited, unless orangemayhem says otherwise, but I'm still going to make an argument.

Poc1: No, We Don't Want To Scare North Korea

I would like to share the following quotes from the video:

"I can hardly repress my anger at the attempt of the south Korean authorities, servants of the Yankees, to impair the dignity of the DPRK supreme leadership."

"Mercy can never be shown for those attempting to raise their fists at the Sun like a puppy knowing no fear of the tiger."

"Now is the time for us to finally settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists. If they dare provoke a war on this land, the DPRK people will wipe out the aggressors, wrecker of global peace, to the last one and build a reunified thriving nation."

"We can no longer bear such provocation. If the enemies ignite a war, I will promptly rejoin the army to destroy their den totally."

Am I the only one who finds these quotes a bit suspicious? There's no pause, no 'um' or any equivalent. So we have two options.

The first is that North Koreans talk like I do when I'm mocking the rhethoric of certain socialists by referring to people as the Foul Capitalist Running Dog Dollar-Humping Slugs. If this is the case, then they have probably been brainwashed, so it is not their fault and we should try to undo the brainwashing.

The second is that the YouTube channel for Korea's propoganda ministry faked it[1].

Which of these fits Occam's Razor?

PoC2: Getting Eaten Is Not A Superpower

To quote Pro:

"SUPER-FRUIT: fruit which has powers traditionally associated with super-heroes (such as flight, heat vision etc.). "

Bestowing immunity on someone who eats you is not typically a superhero power, and it is not traditionally associated with superheroes. The resolution does not say 'we should genetically modify fruit to do pretty much anything we damn please'. Therefore the argument must be dismissed.

Pro also argues that yearly terrorist attacks would be beneficial, to which I say ridiculous. There is no way, no way, that yearly terrorist attacks with hundreds dead is worth the slight increase in readiness for other terrorist attacks. And who says the superfruit is non-sentient? It'll probably gain awareness and try to kill us all.

1. http://translate.google.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Hell, missed my round by less than ten minutes.

Sorry about that, I thought that it wouldn't take me so long to go get stuff for college.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
orangemayhemCitrakayahTied
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: Until I saw this was a troll debate I agreed with Con. I am hesitant to judge a debate simply because of a FF, because I know from personal experience that unfortunate circumstances can occur. However, Pro still had much better arguments, in the context of a troll debate, and had much more numerous and reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
orangemayhemCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, with an auto-victory rule in place... On the other hand, con survived being eaten by this Superfruit, which makes me question how super it really is if it can't kill one nerd (not rebelling by putting votes in his favor, just not votebombing as the rule requests).
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 4 years ago
MisterDeku
orangemayhemCitrakayahTied
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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
orangemayhemCitrakayahTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CON forfeited; as stated in the rules put in place in R1, all seven points go to PRO.