The topic for this debate is ”Genetic Modification Of Crop Seeds Are Unethical And Should Be Stopped Immediately”.

ragster will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Skyfloating will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

Hello Ragster, Hello Judges, Hello Readers.

I have been assigned the debate topic „GM Crops are not unethical and need not be stopped immediately“. I will do my best to represent this viewpoint within this debate.

Guiding Statement:While it is important that we remain sceptical of new advancements in technology, we need not demonize everything that is new. I’d like to show that our examination of this important topic mustn’t be fear-based but looked at in an objective and calm manner to arrive at the truth.

Definition:Genetic Modification refers to the alteration of crop plants (foods we eat) using molecular biology.

Advantages of GM:

• Food for the World: Our population of 6 Billion is expected to double in the next 50 years. Already today, entire continents do not have enough to eat. In the spirit of survival of us all and not only the privileged, GM offers solutions for famine. “Stopping GM Crops immediately” as my debate opponent argues, would have large parts of the population starve to death. Opponents of GM do not offer viable alternatives for our continued survival and prosperity as far as food is concerned.

• Insect Pest Resistance: GM offers food that is resistant to insect pests. This has been a major cause of financial loss for farmers, starvation in third world countries and health hazards caused by the use of pesticides on our foods. GM is the healthy alternative.

• Herbicide Resistance: Large amounts of weed-killers (herbicide) are expensive, can harm the environment, and take a lot of work and time. Herbicide resistant GM plants can be created to reduce the amount of Herbicide needed, thereby saving costs and protecting the environment.

• Weather Resistance: It is possible to create GM plants that are resistant against frost, drought and other weather conditions hazardous to the crop. This will allow for the cultivation of foods in places not normally suitable and therefore help put an end to starvation (The same applies to salt-resistant GM crop)

• Pollution and Disease Resistance: Fungi, Bacteria, Viruses, and contamination by pollution are major causes for food loss. This too can be solved with GM.

• Solution to Malnutrition: One example would be an African town that has only rice to eat. Rice will not suffice for a balanced nutrition though. GM opens up the possibility of adding other elements to the rice, such as vitamins and could solve this problem.

Conclusion:Considering the huge benefits of GM it would be premature to demonize it as generally unethical across the board and call for it’s immediate termination.

Humankind has been altering nature since the beginning of time. Our roads, buildings, foods, telecommunications all constitute an alteration of the way things were before. Modifying food is no different than this.

In my next post we will be examining the objections to GM as brought forward by my debate opponent and the general public.

Questions to my Opponent

1. Do you agree that banning all GM of crops immediately would cause problems in several countries that are dependent on them?

2. Do you agree that GM crops may offer the solution to famine and starvation?

3. Do you agree that withholding or banning that solution could be termed unethical?

I´ll reply to these false statements with simple and sad facts:

In August 2003, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.

I do care about the people not having food, but that truly is there problem, not ours, not anyone’s except their own… and that is not up for debate.

Does mass-starvation indicate that what we have done in the past “works just fine”? I think not. We need to come up with new solutions to old problems, and my opponents anti-research stance is not helpful.

Indeed cloning has nothing to do with research, I think cloning is quite new and works great.

Mass starvation, once again, it is such a terrible thing in this world. But to have a product that will heal mass hunger, a product that is made over night, bought everyday a new, never controlled by the people who need it, sounds like a prison; a prison where people are in need of life.

How about researching GMO’s that will cause the ends of natural process, research for the faster and better, if the world has learned anything it’s that fast anything has its catch.

And its obvious the research for GMO’s is not to save the world from starvation, its to build a better economic and capitalization standard in the world.


Cloning is a great alternative, simple easy, everyone can do it… as for GMO…

My opponent’s lack of research on the negative effects of GMO proves that the use of the product must be indeed sketchy. I will and have admitted that GMO’s are used in this world and are nice, but the long term overwhelming GMO only would cause mass effect chaos in a natural eco system.

The reason simply put is that GMO needs to be stopped, and in time. You just don’t cut the line in this world… an back on track with the debate…the debate is simply that GMO is unethical, and needs to be stopped in processing and production because of its unethical distribution and effects on the known world.

1. Are you saying that the immediate stopping of GM Foods research and productions will have no adverse effects?

2. Do you consider it unethical for someone to ask money for food?

3. What are the 3 main reasons you are convinced that genetic modifications of food is unethical?

1. I am saying immediate stoppage of GMO products would be fine, yes sure some people would not be without food, but guess what there is no way to immediately stop all production of GMO and plantation already in growth of GMO. It would be a slow stop, you cannot just cut the line, I think the debate name ”Genetic Modification Of Crop Seeds Are Unethical And Should Be Stopped Immediately” is misleading is a way. It can better be understood as.

Genetic modification of seeds is unethical, the production of the seeds needs to be halted.

Cutting off all flow of seeds to the world would cause farmers and such to not have their special miracle seed no more having to go back to regular old planting.

Now it would be unethical in countries that have no seeds of any other plants except GM products and this is another reason why GM is unethical, it is a mortal need, GM production companies know if they can bring their product into a country it will push out any other competition even natural grown foods, there plans are dominate an take over destroying other farm lands, giving a GM production full control on distribution. But again we are not debating the ethics of a distribution company. We are debating the ethics of production of seed that are Genetically Modified.

Because there is no obvious facts or evidence that GM products are good for a long time ot bad for a long time we must look into other reason why the product would be deemed unethical, and as stated there is enough evidence to prove that.


2. It is unethical to demand money for food if a country is per say in need of life or death for a food, why charge a as quoted by you

This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.

.


3. Reason 1- GMO’s offer a short time, short meaningful haven for those in need but the practicality of continued plantations and self farmed sustaining farm lands is impossible as the seeds are controlled by a higher faction, production company.

Reason 2- GMO’s are a means to show great increase in food profits over a period of time, only noticing the good benefits and ignoring the negative effects of GMO’s. The negative effects greatly outnumber and will continue to build over the years.

Reason 3- GMO’s will become a much needed and desired product in the future if allowed to be mass produced, self farms will be taking out and made room for new plantation of new seed that is made by man, some say “playing God” is not right. I do not care, it’s the simple fact that “super seed” will control the agriculture market, and no longer will man have a say in the way he wants to farm, only companies and governments will control, furthering world power movements.


Concluding- the simple thing is, that GMO’s are unethical. Unethical as in means of usage, the means will destroy known ecosystems in this world, unethical as GMO’s will cause more conflict and more turmoil because they will become a cash flow such a need entire countries will die without them. To have something that is so important as food controlled by one company or even government is unethical, therefore also not in all ways, but will cause GMO production to be unethical.




Question for Opponent

1. What is more important:

Someone who is without food because of either external problems (war, drought) and or internal problems (laziness or brain malfunction) or someone who has food because life around them is controlled (IE GMO production) and or because they have to give their life to live?

2. Do you believe if GMO's are continued and one day completely legalized all around the world that each and every person will have their own farm, their own seed production system, their own choice in the matter if they wanna plant this season or not (will GMO's free the people or enslave them)?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by MemoryShock]

In a previous post my opponent said that there are no countries dependent on GM Crop and that there is no financial benefit to GM Crop. When I refuted this with the example of the Zambian people who caused a famine by banning GM Crop, my opponent responds with this:

Ragster:
I do care about the people not having food, but that truly is there problem, not ours, not anyone’s except their own… and that is not up for debate.

This is a diversion from the fact that I have debunked one of my opponents core ideas. My post had nothing to do with who´s fault it was or wasnt but merely with refuting his claims. Next my opponent writes:

Mass starvation, once again, it is such a terrible thing in this world. But to have a product that will heal mass hunger, a product that is made over night, bought everyday a new, never controlled by the people who need it, sounds like a prison; a prison where people are in need of life.

This is no argument at all, because even non-GM-foods need to be bought.

And its obvious the research for GMO’s is not to save the world from starvation, its to build a better economic and capitalization standard in the world.

Activists against GM Crops often have socialist/communist leanings, believing that food should be distributed for free or without profit for the distributor. While this might be a noble ideal it is highly ineffective. Practice and experience has shown that products not attached to some form of profit, are short-lived. It contradicts the basics of trade.The results can be seen in socialist nations: North Korea is constantly on the brink of mass-starvation. Socialist leader Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has banned GM Crops using the same arguments as my opponent. Giving people food for free does nothing to strengthen their ability to be independent of the benefactor and strengthen their own ability to create food. And, again, we also pay for non-GM-Foods, which are also processed by various COMPANIES.

Ragster:Cloning is a great alternative, simple easy, everyone can do it… as for GMO…

This is a wild contradiction to my opponents previous stance of new technologies having unforseeable negative consequences. I think if we´re going to be careful with GM, we should also be careful with cloning.

My opponent’s lack of research on the negative effects of GMO proves that the use of the product must be indeed sketchy

My opponent has cited a far-out-there-fringe-website (globalresearch.ca) to prove this point (without even explaining in which way that source proves his point) I have cited sincere and objective sources to prove mine and have explained why.

The reason simply put is that GMO needs to be stopped, and in time. You just don’t cut the line in this world… an back on track with the debate…the debate is simply that GMO is unethical, and needs to be stopped in processing and production because of its unethical distribution and effects on the known world.

Please read my opponents quoted paragraph closely as it perfectly displays the typical faulty logic used by GM opponents. My opponent says it needs to be stopped without telling us exactly why it needs to be stopped. Then he says it needs to be stopped because its unethical, without telling us why it is unethical. Up to now all we have is emotionally-coloured slogans without proof.

I think the debate name ”Genetic Modification Of Crop Seeds Are Unethical And Should Be Stopped Immediately” is misleading is a way. It can better be understood as. Genetic modification of seeds is unethical, the production of the seeds needs to be halted.

Being unable to defend the debate topic, my opponent tries to change the debate topic.

It is unethical to demand money for food

Really? So you would advice stealing food as a solution to our problems? Or perhaps giving them fish for free rather than teaching them how to fish? If we give them food for free, we will soon be starving along with them.

self farms will be taking out and made room for new plantation of new seed that is made by man, some say “playing God” is not right. I do not care, it’s the simple fact that “super seed” will control the agriculture market, and no longer will man have a say in the way he wants to farm, only companies and governments will control, furthering world power movements.

The same fear-based argument is used in any other area of new development. When Television was invented, some said "Thats no good. It will kill radio! Our cherished radio!". But radio is still alive and well. We have been chemically altering our food since more than a hundred years, and still completely natural foods are available. A free market is all about A great variety of choice and there will always be the choice to have GM Foods or unaltered foods. As shown in my previous post, GM fields only make up 2% of the whole. And already people are trying to create panic.

Concluding- the simple thing is, that GMO’s are unethical. Unethical as in means of usage, the means will destroy known ecosystems in this world, unethical as GMO’s will cause more conflict and more turmoil because they will become a cash flow such a need entire countries will die without them. To have something that is so important as food controlled by one company or even government is unethical, therefore also not in all ways, but will cause GMO production to be unethical.

The amount of times my opponent says "GMO´s are unethical" are almost countless. The reason for this is that GMO´s itself cannot "BE" unethical in and of themselves. Only what WE DO with them can be ethical or unethical. Try telling a microscopic organism "You are unethical". What nonsense. Of course, if GM Food production were in the hands of one single company, that would have negative implications. Thats why we need to keep monopoly-laws in place, to avoid such.

1. What is more important: Someone who is without food because of either external problems (war, drought) and or internal problems (laziness or brain malfunction) or someone who has food because life around them is controlled (IE GMO production) and or because they have to give their life to live?

As already explained, having to purchase food does not mean one is "controlled"...at least not in the understanding basic economy and trade ("I give you a cow if you give me that steel"). And to answer your question: I am 100% sure that having a choice of different foods (GM and non-GM) is preferrable to war, drought and "brain malfunction".

2. Do you believe if GMO's are continued and one day completely legalized all around the world that each and every person will have their own farm, their own seed production system, their own choice in the matter if they wanna plant this season or not (will GMO's free the people or enslave them)?

The reason debates such as this one are necessary is to make sure that the dark predictions of anti-GM-activists do not come true. If we remain aware of these factors I am sure we can steer the world in a direction in which every nation is self-sufficient and everyone can produce their own seeds and foods. Wouldnt that be wonderful....

Conclusion: I am 100% certain that GM Foods should be regulated and closely monitored, but that doesnt mean they should be banned. Past experiences have shown us that technological advancements gone unmonitored and promoted without ethical responsibility have caused us and the planet damage and that technological advancements that have been introduced with care and ethical considerations have been a blessing.

Simple as that.

Closing Statement


In closing this debate I would like to highlight 3 things.

1. Genetically Modified Seeds, Organisms are unethical to produce because they do offer no positive changes for the environment, they do not offer any proven worldwide positive effects. GMO’s will cause a change in this world that man will never be able to reverse. It will become one of the world’s greatest regrets.


2. GMO’s offer hope to those in need, they offer hope and dreams to people who do not have the possibility to live another day without food own their own. GMO’s will change the world in two ways. Helping life now, turning life around forever.


3. GMO’s will grow into this world, they will consume this world. GMO’s will become a life source, a need like air & water for the world. The world will never be able to go without them, the people of need will never be able to live their own life ever again.



At looking on “No More GM Crops” as the Highlight of this debate I am satisfied with the facts and information given. This subject is difficult for it people will always be arguing it whether religious or green advocates to pro GMO supporters.

Genetically Modified crops if so continued, will change the known world and the echoes of this great advancement will bounce back and knock man off of his feet, will destroy his given foundation in the world, sustained by man, man.


I stand to ban genetically modified seeds and organisms .

We must not give man this, for it may look good answer, and offer great effects for man, but will man ever take into consideration what mans selfishness will do to the environment. GMO production is risking the future.

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

I propose a world that will take initiative, a world that will help fellow man in need and teach him how to farm and not fight wars, how to help build and not create destruction. Man wastes his life trying to control others. Let’s show man to not accept life from others in a controlled environment, but instead show him how to preserve a free life by making life for others.


Thank you

“Let us resolve that we will stop spreading dependency and start spreading opportunity; that we will stop spreading bondage and start spreading freedom.” - Ronald Reagan

This debate has led me to change my views

I will admit that when I was assigned this topic I was skeptical. Skeptical not only of GM Foods in general ("Yuck...how can unnatural foods be good?") but also of my ability to actually win this argument. I must say, I was ill-informed. My strategy was to look up the best evidence against GM Foods so that I would be properly prepared for the onslaught of my opponent.

But guess what...I didnt find that "best evidence against GM". Instead I found that my own skepticism was based on rumours and hearsay and that I didnt have a clue of all the benefits and possibilities.

My new position, after reviewing the facts, is that changing something in nature is not necessarily "unnatural" because the human doing the changes, the things he changes, the tools with which he changes, are all derived from nature. We are only making use of the possibilities already there! And there is absolutely nothing unethical about discovering a good product and offering it to the world.

My opponent uses one of my favourite attitudes: Dont give them fish, teach them how to fish!

Ironically, what my opponent has been proposing throughout this debate goes in the opposite direction of that. He leans towards money and trade being unethical, he´d rather give people food for free...to give them fish for free.

I also learned that most Con-points are based on what might happen in the Future, rather than the already collected evidence. They are based on irrational fear rather than results of research and usage.

In closing, lets review the debate topic:

Genetic Modification Of Crop Seeds Are Unethical And Should Be Stopped Immediately”.

In other words: "Changing Nature is unethical and should be stopped at once". How does that sound? Unconvincing I would say.

Stopping GM Research and Production immediately goes against

* Freedom of responsible Scientific research
* A possibility to find solutions for third world hunger and malnutrition
* Free Trade

Banning GM Crop Seeds immediately can therefore not be considered a serious and viable or even realistic solution.

The solution is: Continue to research and produce GM Foods, but with care and regulation.

Continue to Progress and Learn, but handle new advancements with Care.

Thank you for reading. I also thank MemoryShock for his work on the Debate Forum. . I thank the judges for taking the timeI thank the Ragster for the Challenge.

Thanks for the patience in awaiting this judgment. Without further aduiex, Skyfloating will advance to Round Three. The judges comments...

Ragster V Skyfloating

Hi *Removal Of First Name*, here's my judgement:

ragster made a reasonable start, and made a few good arguments against GM, but as the debate progressed, he was unable to back them up with any real evidence, and instead, relied on repeating the same assetions made in his opening statement - a good position which could have been better defended was instead repetitious and didn't inform the reader to any great extent

I would have liked to see ragster make more of the possible dangers which are alleged about GM and spin his rhetoric around that - something which he seemed to attempt and then abandon.

All in all, ragster failed to convince me with any of his points, particularly with regards to the proliferation of GM and possible misuse of the technology regarding both its usage and its pricing/availability.

Skyfloating made a good opening case, and stuck to his guns very well, completely negating the points made by ragster, and in some cases turning them around very nicely.
Although Skyfloating produced less evidence and fewer links, his stronger use of rhetoric and his ability to negate his opponents points by use of good clear arguments made him the clear winner.

It was a brave and gutsy move in his closing statement to say that he had been a believer in his opponents stance before the debate began - but for me, that was just the icing on the cake, as the debate had been clearly won in the first exchanges.

I make Skyfloating the winner by a fairly comfortable margin.

This debate was on a topic that I got the opportunity to argue with several others about one evening in an after-school college prep course some 7 years ago. I'm glad that I was asked to judge this debate.

First of all, I'd like to thank both ragster and Skyfloating for their taking the time to grace us, the membership, with this wonderful debate. Another thank you goes to Memoryshock, whose tireless efforts in this Debate Forum are second to none other than The Vagabond himself. Good job guys.

ragster,

You had a hard side to defend, and it makes it even harder when there's not much substantiating evidence to support your side. Throughout this debate, you relied on a lot of supposition and speculation, with no real evidence until your third reply.

This evidence helped to bolster your side temporarily, but it seemed to fail to back up your side when faced with the reality of what was being debated.


Skyfloating,

The side of the debate that you were given was a bit easier to defend than ragster's was, but it still had it's own challenges. You had a few more supporting sources that illustrated your points well, and you made a seemingly convincing argument to at least continue research on Genetically modifying plants and other organisms for our exploitation.

While I don't agree with all of the source material provided, I found the majority of it to be upstanding and supportive. Because of this, your argument seemed to have more substance to me.

It is with this that I state that I feel as though Skyfloating made the more convincing argument, and deserves the win here.

ragster, you had a hard side to fight, and I definitely hope that you don't give up on the Debate forum. You're a natural!!

Skyfloating, that was a well-fought win there. Good job!!

awesome debate!

great job skyfloating

an thanks to judges and memoryshock for doing this all

good luck skyfloating on the next rounds!

ragster