The Instigator
mongoose
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
zanerad
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

We need to reduce our corn intake

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
mongoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,302 times Debate No: 7701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

mongoose

Pro

Hello, this is my first debate here on Debate.org, so I hope I do well.

The world is currently using too much corn for everything we can think of, and it is hurting the economy. First, farmers grow massive amounts of corn, more than we could possibly need. Then the government gives them subsidies for when they grow more corn, when the government isn't even buying the corn in the first place. They feel the need to do this because that means that the farmers are able to sell there corn to the food companies for less, so that food companies can sell there food for very low prices. This makes things that use corn, like cheeseburgers and soda, seem cheaper than they actually are, so people buy them, and food companies get larger profits than the farmers, when they aren't doing as much work.

Also, it is responsible for the Escherichia coli outbreak, because cattle are now mass-fed corn, which they do not naturally eat. They usually eat grass, which their stomachs are designed for. When fed corn, it increases the acidity of the cattle's stomach, allowing the E coli to live, and from there spread to people. It used to kill off the E coli, allowing people to eat it without harm.

http://www.usnews.com...
zanerad

Con

I can start by saying we are using too much corn in the U.S. and it is hurting the economy. I think it would be better to use corn for biofuel so we don't use up all of the natural oils in the U.S. because then we'd be in deeper having to start relying more on other countries like Saudi Arabia, and have to pay them to get the oils for the gas. If we start using corn for more things it may be gone faster and we might not have it to use though, but if we use the corn for more items we won't need to rely on those other countries for oil.
If all of us in the country used biofuel from corn, we could help to, "go green" or help not have as much smoke in the atmosphere and stop global warming from happening. I think it is a good alternative plan, just incase.
The companies shouldn't be making more, I agree with that, but don't you think that the companies would deserve some of it? Also I'm sure the companies would still have to pay a decent amount of money if the companies have to buy the corn from them.
The E coli issue is a serious thing but they should just stop feeding them the corn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You make many good points that I agree with but corn can still be an alternative as a back up.
Debate Round No. 1
mongoose

Pro

I can start by saying we are using too much corn in the U.S. and it is hurting the economy."

That was my point. You are CON. I am PRO. You need to argue the other side, not mine. You conceded my point.

"I think it would be better to use corn for biofuel so we don't use up all of the natural oils in the U.S. because then we'd be in deeper having to start relying more on other countries like Saudi Arabia, and have to pay them to get the oils for the gas. If we start using corn for more things it may be gone faster and we might not have it to use though, but if we use the corn for more items we won't need to rely on those other countries for oil.
If all of us in the country used biofuel from corn, we could help to, "go green" or help not have as much smoke in the atmosphere and stop global warming from happening. I think it is a good alternative plan, just incase."

http://www.grist.org...

Ethanol causes more problems that it fixes. It uses tremendous amounts of antibiotics, which in turn over time increases the bacterium's resistance to that antibiotic, causing outbreaks of disease. It also involves even more government subsidies. Also, it takes almost a gallon of fossil fuels to create a gallon of corn ethanol.

"The companies shouldn't be making more, I agree with that, but don't you think that the companies would deserve some of it?"

You conceded again. They deserve some of it, but they don't deserve any of what the government subsidizes.

"Also I'm sure the companies would still have to pay a decent amount of money if the companies have to buy the corn from them."

Your use of the word "still" confuses me. They would have to pay more, not less. Only if they would have to pay less the word "still" would be used in this context.

"The E coli issue is a serious thing but they should just stop feeding them the corn."

My point exactly; you conceded again.

"You make many good points that I agree with but corn can still be an alternative as a back up."

Thank you. Keeping it as an alternative would still be reducing the corn intake.
zanerad

Con

Actually you are the For (pro), "Reducing our corn," intake so I didn't concede as much as you say. I was simply agreeing with you when I said "we are using too much corn in the U.S. and it is hurting the economy." You should say things like: "We should stop using so much corn..." or " We should reduce our corn intake because..."
If you wanted to say we should use it you should have been Con or against reducing corn intake. Do you understand this?
Your first argument also said "The world is currently using too much corn for everything we can think of, and it is hurting the economy. First, farmers grow massive amounts of corn, more than we could possibly need. Then the government gives them subsidies for when they grow more corn, when the government isn't even buying the corn in the first place." and that is for reducing corn intake.
I said,"I think it would be better to use corn for biofuel so we don't use up all of the natural oils in the U.S. because then we'd be in deeper having to start relying more on other countries like Saudi Arabia, and have to pay them to get the oils for the gas." because I am against reducing the corn intake.
Debate Round No. 2
mongoose

Pro

If you are using too much of something, you need to reduce it, by definition of too much: beyond the desirable amount. You didn't post any further arguments, so I can't debate anything. By using corn ethanol, we don't reduce our carbon emissions. It would increase it, because it requires extra transportation, and uses more land. If we used our own oil on American soil, we wouldn't hurt the environment nearly as much as the Saudi Arabians do. If you are against the reducing of corn intake, you think we don't use too much corn. But you said "We should stop using so much corn...," so you contradicted yourself.
zanerad

Con

I understand that I contradicted myself, purposely, I agreed, but it was just a small statement and I countered my agreement by saying that we could still use a little more as biofuel instead of not using it. I agreed that because we are using quite a bit of corn. I think we should still use "more than the desirable amount" it will help ecosystems and the pollution level go down over time. Even if we took oils from the soil we would run out in a small amount of time. Even if the Saudi Arabians hurt their environment, it doesn't mean we should hurt ours just because it won't hurt ours "as much."
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Yes, sorry Mongoose I made a bit of a mess of that.
What I of course meant to say was that we do not 'need' to reduce our corn intake as our survival does not depend on such a reduction.
Good luck with your debate anyway.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Contradicting yourself is the easiest way to lose a debate.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
"If you wanted to say we should use it you should have been Con or against reducing corn intake. Do you understand this?"

NO
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
I think anyone who wanted to might have a chance of winning this debate on the basis that there is no real 'need' for corn and 'we' could survive fine without it.
If it was "should reduce our corn intake" it might be harder to argue against.
Posted by McBain 8 years ago
McBain
The majority of corn produced in this country is NOT even fit for human consumption, but is instead used for feed stock. This causes a wide variety of health concerns for livestock which is the primary consumer of corn in this country as well as health concerns for consumers of said livestock which are less healthy because of their corn fed diets. Corn fed livestock tend to bulk up in weight causing more meat produced per animal, though in the process they also have enormous developmental and health problems due to their un-natural grain diets. To boot, the nutritional value of the livestock and flavor of the meat is greatly diminished from their diets. The livestock must be fed massive amounts of antibiotics to keep them alive, and the true bredth of their health problems is not seen due to their early slaughter in their lifetime. This is a major reason why red meats such as those used in our fast food industry are so high in fat and low in nutritional value. This applies to chicken, cattle, and much much more.

Corn produces a surprisingly low volume of food for the amount of land required to grow it, and it saps said land of nitrogen and other nutrients faster that almost any other produce grown on farms.

I am interested to see con's arguements.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
haha nice one ;)
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Your mom needs to reduce her corn intake.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
The two points are based on ethics and caring for other species, which are abundant.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
"The Omnivore's Dilema" is the reason I started this debate.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
You never thought about it because Asians eat rice, not corn.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
mongoosezaneradTied
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 
Vote Placed by acer 8 years ago
acer
mongoosezaneradTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
mongoosezaneradTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
mongoosezaneradTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:60 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
mongoosezaneradTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07