The Instigator
Con (against)
8 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points


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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 968 times Debate No: 86285
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




The newly-formed technology creates plants that uses a lot of soil"s resources and loses its ability to continue growing crops in the future, even when crop rotations are used. It can take a very long time (might take several years) for the soil used for growing these crops to recover from just 2-3 years of biotech plants being grown.
All plants have that characteristic level of cross-pollination. When biotech plants have come into contact with normal crops, the hybrids that are created with this may not be able to continue. Thus, it may cause normal crops or simply, plants, to be tweaked unexpectedly.
It costs a lot to grow biotech plants than growing regular crops. Simply, there is no cost-savings that happens. In animals, expensive and advanced technologies are needed to be produced to maintain genetically engineered species.
Genetic pollution happens where biotech species multiply at a higher rate compared to regular species that are present and with the possibility of being extinct.
Animal species that are created have side-effects such as short life span. They are prone to disease, mutations, and physical defects. And, hybrid species created may contain new strains of diseases or viruses that are produced from the modified genes.
Some people view biotech in humans as playing god. This issue has often tied to religion. Therefore, it made biotechnology a controversial subject.

Sources: Advise America, Yahoo Answers, Health Research Funding, Occupy Theory


Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make products, or "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2).
For thousands of years, humankind has used biotechnology for betterment. SO biotechnology is good.
Debate Round No. 1


One of the reasons why biotechnology is being practiced is to reduce hunger. But the real roots of hunger are: poverty, inequality, and lack of access to food and land. Too many people didn"t have that money, or too poor, to buy the food that is available that is, however, poorly circulated, or absence of land and resources to grow it themselves. (Lappe, Collins & Rosset, 1998).

I will put down here some valid reasons why biotechnology is not good for third world countries:

Recent study states that there are hidden risks of eating genetically engineered foods being produced. Such foods could act them as allergens or toxins, change the metabolism of the food making plant or animal, causing it to give new allergens or toxins; or lessen its nutritional value.

The real core of biotechnology is to bring about profits, and not make third-world countries more productive (Busch et al., l990). By regulating a seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay escalated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are decisive that they will excerpt the most profit from their investment.

" In Illinois, the adoption of herbicide resistant crops makes for the most expensive soybean seed-plus-weed management system in modern history"between $40.00 and $60.00 per acre depending on fee rates, weed pressure, and so on. Three years ago, the average seed-plus-weed control costs on Illinois farms was $26 per acre, and represented 23% of variable costs; today they represent 35-40% (Benbrook, l999). " Several farmers are eager to pay for the clarity and sturdiness of the new weed management system, but such edges would be short-lived as ecological problems appear. Through seed costs and technology charges, companies advancing herbicide tolerant crops are attempting to change as much per acre cost as possible from the defoliant.

There are some experimental trials that show that biotech seeds do not increase the crop"s yield. "A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations where Bt crops or herbicide tolerant crops (HTCs) fared better, they exhibited increased yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar conventionally bred varieties" (USDA, l999).

Too much adjustment of the crops through biotechnology has removed the very soul of natural farming. It has been addressed that biotech crops intimidated butterflies. It also adds to the serious problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

(Biotecharticles, Agbioforum)


According to the OECD definition, biotechnology is:

"The application of science and technology to living organisms, as well as parts, products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials for the production of knowledge, goods and services.

" Simply put, it is a technology that is based on biology, which uses living organisms to make innovative products that improve our lives.
Have access to safe and affordable food while enabling more food to be grown using less land,& energy
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments came out as stronger overall, con came out to talk about the risks and the ulterior profit motive and came out with the points that it was not designed to better third world countries. Con mainly won because pro never presented a proper argument as he never tried to convince me how biotechnology was actually good nor did he rebut any points. The reason I'm not giving con the sources point is simply because throwing random studies at me isn't feasible enough, the sources weren't properly cited and it was rather difficult trying to find them, furthermore, the validity of the sources today also matter, because con put along what he considered "recent studies" that were actually published in 1998, and I don't entirely consider that source to be too applicable in 2016. But overall, con wins.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: First point on arguments. Con was the only one to make an argument based on research and cited sources. Con explained in easy to read yet insightful arguments how bio technology is bad. Next point on sources because they were properly cited and came from multiple sites, therefore being more reliable than using one or two. In the end my vote goes to con.