Instigator / Pro
19
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#525
Genetically Modified Organisms Are Essential To Humans
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
12
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
4
After 6 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
Death23
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description
===Rules===
Per DebateArt policy on moderation, rules and definitions are not binding on voters or debaters UNLESS both debaters request to the voters that the rules be followed and that the definitions be used when voting on the debate.
Well, this is my formal request to voters to follow the rules and to use the definitions below when voting.
Rule 1
To anyone wishing to accept this debate, please copy and paste the following phrase below, somewhere in your 1st round.
---I request that voters follow the rules and definitions of this debate---
Rule 2
Voters must follow the rules and definitions of this debate when voting.
Rule 3
Death23, RationalMadman, Raltar, or anyone who at the time of this post is restrained from interacting with me may not vote on or participate in this debate.
===Full Resolution===
Consuming food from genetically modified organisms is essential to human life.
==Pro==
Has 4 rounds, each with 10,000 characters and 3 days per post, to affirm the full resolution.
==Con==
Has 4 rounds, each with 10,000 characters and 3 days per post, to negate the full resolution.
===Definitions===
consuming - eating, drinking, ingesting, or absorbing.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consume
food - any nutritious substance that people eat or drink or absorb in order to maintain life and growth.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/food
from - indicating the raw material out of which something is manufactured.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/from
genetically - in a way that relates to genes or genetics.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genetically
modified - transformed from its original anatomical form during development or evolution.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/modify
organism - an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organism
essential - absolutely necessary or extremely important.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/essential
human - relating to or characteristic of humankind.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/human
life - living things and their activity.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/life
Round 1
Pro
#1
Intro
Well, shit.
The opposite of thanks for accepting the debate, Con.
Rule number 3 was clear that you were not to participate in this debate, and quite obnoxiously, you did it any way.
Voters should view this ignorance of the rules as poor conduct, and, if voters actually respect debate rules as they are laid out, then voters should view Con's egregious violation as a total loss of the debate.
I'm going to still follow the rules and definitions, despite my opponents incapability to do so.
Affirm
Genetically modified organisms account for all of the biodiversity of life on Earth.
They also make for essential food sources.
Digestion
There are perhaps few processes more essential to human life than digestion, because digestion is the sole means by which our cells metabolize energy from the outside world.
During digestion, our bodies absorb essential compounds like amino acids, fats, and carbohydrates, all of which can only naturally come from genetically modified organisms.
If metabolism is essential to human life, digestion is essential to metabolism, food is essential to digestion, and essential compounds in our food essentially come from genetically modified organisms, then genetically modified organisms are essential to human life.
Food Sources
While you may be able to get some sodium or potassium from rocks or dirt, you cannot get proteins, fats, and carbohydrates without food from genetically modified organisms.
All of the macromolecules one needs to ingest to maintain life come from genetically modified organisms.
Think about what you ate today.
Aside from the water, salts, medicine, and some minerals, everything you ingested today was derived directly or indirectly from genetically modified organisms, from the oatmeal in your breakfast to the chicken in your dinner.
I challenge Con to find foods with essential macromolecules that are NOT directly/indirectly derived from genetically modified organisms.
Genetically Modified
All living organisms on Earth are genetically modified from their evolutionary ancestors, and these organisms are what compose our food, which is essential to human life.
"We've defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation."
University of California, Berkeley - Descent With Modification
Since all organisms descended with modification and the particular type of modification was in fact genetic, the essential macromolecules needed by humans when consuming must come from genetically modified organisms.
Without other organisms, humans cannot essentially consume.
Therefore, I affirm.
Con?
Con
#2
Re: Alleged conduct violation
Pro alleges a violation of rule number 3. Yet,
Pro said of these rules that "rules and definitions are not binding on
voters or debaters". So, by what Pro said of the rules, I was not bound in
any way by rule number 3. In light of that, Pro's allegation of a rule
violation doesn't make much sense.
Pro made a "formal request to voters"
that you vote according to his rules. I formally request that you don't.
My case -
Resolution: "Consuming food from genetically
modified organisms is essential to human life."
The meaning of "genetically modified
organism" is apparent from the entry for that term found within
Encyclopedia Britannica -
Genetically modified organism (GMO), organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products. In conventional livestock production, crop farming, and even pet breeding, it has long been the practice to breed select individuals of a species in order to produce offspring that have desirable traits. In genetic modification, however, recombinant genetic technologies are employed to produce organisms whose genomes have been precisely altered at the molecular level, usually by the inclusion of genes from unrelated species of organisms that code for traits that would not be obtained easily through conventional selective breeding.
Human life predates laboratories, genetic
technology and genetically modified organisms. Ergo, consuming food from
genetically modified organisms is not essential to human life. The resolution
is thus negated.
Re: Pro's case
Pro's case rests on accepting the broadest
interpretation possible for "genetically modified organism". Pro
takes a functional approach to interpreting "genetically modified
organism". Pro takes the meanings of the individual words
and combines them. The result is a rather expansive meaning for
"genetically modified organism" which encompassess any organism which
has had some history of genetic modification through evolutionary processes.
Pro's interpretation should be rejected for
several reasons.
First, Pro is assuming that the meaning of the whole of the sum of meanings of the parts, but this is not how language works. "Genetically modified organism" is a multi-word term with a more
narrow meaning in common parlance than what Pro is contending. The ordinary meaning of "genetically
modified organism" is related to, but independent of the words that
compose it. Examples of other multi-word terms would be "sea lion" or
"basket case".
Second, Pro's interpretation, if accepted, would
render the "genetically modified" part of the resolution functionally meaningless.
If all organisms are genetically modified organisms, as Pro contends, then the
resolution would be the functional equivalent of "Consuming food from
organisms is essential to human life." The words "genetically modified" would be redundant and add no meaning. People wouldn't go through the trouble of using those words if they didn't intend to communicate something. Yet, under Pro's interpretation, effectively nothing is communicated by the words "genetically modified".
Third, Pro probably intended for his opponent to interpret "genetically modified organism" in the narrower sense. As this appears to be a "trap debate" sort of thing, Pro set the bait with the usual and ordinary meaning, and now desires to switch the meaning to a special one. Debaters should be bound by the usual and ordinary meanings unless the debaters intended a special meaning. There is no evidence of any such intention here.
Ultimately, this debate is largely a dispute between Pro and Con over
the meaning of "genetically modified organism". You must
decide whose interpretation is correct.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Round 2
Con decides to ignore all of the rules of the debate in order to advance his case, and, aside from being extremely disrespectful to the debate intended and to me, Con fails to directly attack my points because he thinks that just saying things like "common parlance" and "but I don't like that definition...muh...muh" somehow absolves him from the actual debate in which he has to engage.
Well Con's fucking wrong and he's about to get served.
Con's Case
Con tries:
"The meaning of "genetically modified organism" is apparent from the entry for that term found within Encyclopedia Britannica."
My response:
Why do we have to go with Encyclopedia Britannica's word on the matter?
How about Wikipedia's definition and Oxford Dictionaries's corroboration?
"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."
Genetically Modified Organism
What's nice about this definition is that it should be considered common parlance, because it's being used by the most common encyclopedia in the world.
So let's look at each of those words in the definition.
So let's look at each of those words in the definition.
altered - changed in composition.
genetic - relating to genes or heredity.
engineering - modifying by manipulating genetic material.
technique - a way of carrying out a particular task.
It's quite clear that the genetic material of all organisms has been changed in composition via crossing over, natural hybridization, and mutation which are all ways of carrying out the particular task of descent with modification or, in short, genetic engineering techniques.
All organisms, even when considering encyclopedic definitions, are genetically modified as evidenced by descent with modification and how that directly applies to genetic material being manipulated and modified.
Con tries again:
"Genetically modified organism" is a multi-word term with a more narrow meaning in common parlance."
My response:
First of all, fuck common parlance, because it's irrelevant to this debate, and second of all, even when considering the most common of parlance, the most globally used encyclopedia, all organisms are still genetically modified, because their genes are still being manipulated in a particular way, which satisfies the stupid common parlance.
Con keeps at it:
"The ordinary meaning of "genetically modified organism" is related to, but independent of the words that compose it.."
My response:
Independent of the words that compose it?
You saw it here voters, not only did Con make some stupid appeal to "the ordinary," which should have no bearing on how a word should be interpreted, but Con also says that the words that make up the phrase are independent of the phrase "genetically modified organism."
This just shows that Con doesn't understand what a genetically modified organism is,
If the phrase "genetically modified organism" were independent of the word organism, then by Con's logic, a genetically modified organism isn't an organism, it's independent of the term.
Continuing with this logic, one would conclude that a genetically modified organism wasn't modified either, and so it's quite possible that Con thinks that organisms don't ever change and are never modified by mutations and crossing over.
Poor Con.
Con notes:
"If all organisms are genetically modified organisms...then the resolution would be the functional equivalent of "Consuming food from organisms is essential to human life."
My response:
Hey, maybe Con CAN follow the definitions, and here, he shows that the resolution is in fact true, that consuming food from organisms is essential to life, and that's exactly my case.
Thanks for reaffirming Con and showing voters and readers how this resolution makes perfect sense.
Let the truth set you free.
Con speculates:
"Pro probably intended for his opponent to interpret "genetically modified organism" in the narrower sense. As this appears to be a "trap debate" sort of thing."
My response:
This is not a trap debate, if anything, it's a delinquent debater trying to continually harass me, to the point that they will accept debates they've been requested to refrain from, just to piss me off.
This was not a trap debate for one simple reason...it's an open fucking debate that no one was forced to accept, ESPECIALLY after reading the clear definitions.
Don't accept debates you don't like and show some god damn respect.
Conclusion
Con tried to appeal to encyclopedias...the encyclopedias' definitions in fact agree with my case and definitions.
Con tried to appeal to common parlance...the most common of parlance used a definition completely in line with my case and what constitutes a genetically modified organism.
Con tried to claim that I was using a fallacy of composition...Con ended up concluding that the words that make up the phrase "genetically modified organism" are independent of the phrase, so Con's understanding of the phrase is called into question because it seems he doesn't even understand that genetically modified organisms are living cellular organisms; Con thinks organisms are independent of the phrase "genetically modified organism."
Con tried to claim that I was using a fallacy of composition...Con ended up concluding that the words that make up the phrase "genetically modified organism" are independent of the phrase, so Con's understanding of the phrase is called into question because it seems he doesn't even understand that genetically modified organisms are living cellular organisms; Con thinks organisms are independent of the phrase "genetically modified organism."
Con, just tap out...voters, just follow the rules.
Con
#4
Re:
Ignoring the rules
Pro alleges that I ignored all of
the rules of the debate. This is not true. I read the rules and my
interpretation of the rules is that they are not binding on debaters. Pro has
not contended that this interpretation is incorrect.
Re: Other sources
Pro asks why we have to use
Encyclopedia Britannica. We don't have to use Encyclopedia Britannica. Any
credible source would be appropriate. Pro suggests the use of Wikipedia and
Oxford Dictionaries. I have no problems with these sources.
Pro suggests the use of the
following definition from the Wikipedia article for "genetically modified
organism":
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.
I agree with Pro that this is an
acceptable definition. There is now no dispute between the debaters as to which
definition to use for "genetically modified organism". However, I do
not agree with Pro's interpretation of "genetic engineering
techniques".
Within the Wikipedia definition,
"genetic engineering techniques" is a web-link to another article on
genetic engineering techniques. You can see that here -
The "genetic engineering
techniques" article begins as follows:
Genetic engineering can be accomplished using multiple techniques. There are a number of steps that are followed before a genetically modified organism (GMO) is created. Genetic engineers must first choose what gene they wish to insert, modify or delete. The gene must then be isolated and incorporated, along with other genetic elements, into a suitable vector. This vector is then used to insert the gene into the host organism, creating the GMO.
Rather than follow the definition
for "genetic engineering techniques" that is provided by Wikipedia,
Pro desires to substitute a new definition using a different source in an
approach similar to how Pro arrived at his interpretation for "genetically
modified organism" in round 1. Pro's interpretation of "genetic
engineering techniques" should be rejected for the following reasons:
Pro is assuming that the meaning of
the whole is the sum of the meanings of the parts, but this is not how language
works. Within the Wikipedia definition, "genetic engineering" is a multi-word
term with a more narrow meaning than what Pro is contending. In Wikipedia,
"genetic engineering" refers to "the direct manipulation of an
organism's genes using biotechnology." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering ) In Oxford Dictionaries, "genetic engineering" is defined as "deliberate
modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic
material." ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genetic_engineering )
Importantly, within Oxford
Dictionaries, "genetically modified organism" doesn't have an entry.
However, "genetically modified" does, and it's defined as " (of an organism or crop) containing genetic material that
has been artificially altered so as to produce a desired characteristic."
( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genetically_modified )
So, none of the sources referenced
by Pro are supportive of his position. All of these sources are supportive of the intrepretation I put forth in round 1 from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Re: Common parlance
Pro rails much against common parlance,
but this attack is poorly supported. In debates, the resolution is one of the
things that is binding on Pro and Con. The interpretation of the meaning of the
resolution must therefore be fair. It's somewhat like a contract.
In California, where I'm from, when
there is a dispute over the meanings of words in a contract, it is the usual
and ordinary meaning of words that is the default starting point. Civil jury
instruction 315:
You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning.
Re: "Independent of the words
that compose it"
None of what's mentioned shows that
I do not understand what a genetically modified organism (GMO) is. My logic
does not lead to the conclusion that a GMO isn't an organism, nor does it lead
to the conclusion that a GMO wasn't modified. My logic leads to the conclusion
that the meaning of GMO is as it's defined by Encyclopedia Britannica (EB). The
meaning of "GMO" is not merely an organism which has had some changes
to its genetic material at some point in it's evolutionary history. Rather, "GMO" is a
multi-word term with a meaning that is more narrow, referring only to organisms
which have had, at some point in their ancestry, some deliberate modification to genetic material using genetic
engineering techniques.
Re: "Con notes:"
I did not reaffirm the resolution.
My point was that if the meaning of "genetically modified organism"
encompassed all organisms, then there would be no purpose to adding the words
"genetically modified" in front of "organism". Usually when
people communicate they do not use words without the intention to communicate something. Yet, Pro's interpretation of
"GMO" is such that effectively nothing is communicated by the words
"genetically modified".
Re: "Con speculates:"
Pro denies that this was a
"trap debate". His stated reason is that it was an open debate and
that no one was forced to accept. Yet, all debates are open debates and nobody
is forced to accept any debate. Therefore, any "trap debate" would be
an open one without forced acceptance. Pro has not demonstrated that this was
not a trap debate.
Re: "Conclusion"
These are unsupported and conclusory assertions. I deny and challenge as unsubstantiated each
and every assertion under "conclusion".
Round 3
Pro
#5
Round 3
Alright, as I become more and more disturbed by Con's egregious disrespect for this debate, I find opportunity in much of Con's last post, essentially handing the debate to me
Con's Oops
Con concedes:
"Pro asks why we have to use Encyclopedia Britannica. We don't have to use Encyclopedia Britannica. Any credible source would be appropriate. Pro suggests the use of Wikipedia and Oxford Dictionaries. I have no problems with these sources."
My response:
Really?
Because when you click on the source that I provided to Wikipedia, with which you said you have no problem AND consider credible and appropriate, they have the anchor text titled "Definition," and when you click on it, the VERY FIRST LINE says,
"What constitutes a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not always clear and can vary widely. At its broadest it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature."
Do you see that voters?
"Including by nature" means that this considered-credible-and-appropriate-source is EXACTLY verifying the definitions of a genetically modified organism as I had laid them out in my first round.
It also means that Con was wrong yet again.
Con's Wrong
Con says:
"Rather than follow the definition for "genetic engineering techniques" that is provided by Wikipedia, Pro desires to substitute a new definition."
My response:
The titled link "Definition" was written on the page and I just showed you precisely what it said...it agreed that all natural genetic modification is in fact genetically modifying organisms.
There's even a Forbes article on it.
"Nature has always had its own process of transferring genes from one species to another, in effect, creating GMOs."
Nature, The First Creator Of GMOs
Con's Last Attempt...
Con Cites California Law:
"...when there is a dispute over the meanings of words in a contract...Civil jury instruction 315:
'You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning.'
My response:
In the debate description of a debate I intended to have, I included the special meanings of words and instructed both voters and debaters to follow these special meanings.
Any rational judge could see my intent to have a the special meanings used and Con's incessant, childish refusal would be noted as poor conduct or even poor overall debater performance.
Any rational judge could see my intent to have a the special meanings used and Con's incessant, childish refusal would be noted as poor conduct or even poor overall debater performance.
However, it's all moot because Con just buried themselves by admitting that my source was credible and appropriate and it says quite clearly that natural genetic modification is genetic modification all the same and that all organisms were genetically modified from their evolutionary ancestors, exactly as I had laid it all out in my case.
Conclusion
Both Con and I find my sources credible, they mention natural genetic modification as a meaning of the concept and California law would have a judge see the intent for the special meanings and note that Con has substantiated his downfall by citing the very law that destroys his case.
Voters, we both accept my definitions now.
Thanks Con.
Con
#6
Re: Conduct discussion
Pro alleges misconduct. The following is the standard for conduct points in voting:
One debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause.
( https://www.debateart.com/rules )
There is only one relevant question in deciding whether or not to award a conduct point: Does my conduct meet that standard? Well, that's up to you to decide.
Re: New definition from Wikipedia
Pro is now on his third definition. Pro has taken the definition out of context. Here is the full context:
Pro alleges misconduct. The following is the standard for conduct points in voting:
One debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause.
( https://www.debateart.com/rules )
There is only one relevant question in deciding whether or not to award a conduct point: Does my conduct meet that standard? Well, that's up to you to decide.
Re: New definition from Wikipedia
Pro is now on his third definition. Pro has taken the definition out of context. Here is the full context:
What constitutes a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not always clear and can vary widely. At its broadest it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature.[1][2] Taking a less broad view it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans, which would include all crops and livestock. In 1993 the Encyclopedia Britannica defined genetic engineering as "any of a wide range of techniques ... among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., "test-tube" babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation."[3] The European Union (EU) included a similarly broad definition in early reviews, specifically mentioning GMOs being produced by "selective breeding and other means of artificial selection."[4] They later excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[5]
The Wikipedia article cites
underlying sources 1 and 2:
1
Discovery of Nature’s GMO
In the late 1970s, I had the privilege of being part of the team that discovered how useful it could be to know that the Agrobacterium, a microbe that causes galls on plants, is nature’s own genetic engineer. This tiny creature, visible with the assistance of a microscope, delivers a genetic package, called T-DNA, to a plant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/10/04/nature-and-gmos/#62f5966827f4
and
2the bacteria infected ancient plants, inserting its DNA into wild sweet potatoes that were then planted (and replanted) by ancient peoples who found them to be edible. Over time, they say, the infected potato became domesticated and widely disseminated.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/first-gmo-8000-years-old-180955199/
The usage of GMO within the underlying Wikipedia sources suggests direct changes to the DNA using a bacteria. This doesn't include every organism in existence, as Pro suggests.
Even if we accept this new definition, which we shouldn't, the resolution is still false because the overwhelming majority of organisms are not GMOs under this definition. The way the word is being used in the underlying articles doesn't encompass changes to DNA from mutation or natural selection, as Pro contends.
This new definition should be rejected because it is a fringe definition that's inconsistent with the meaning of genetically modified organism as its used in common parlance. Pro and I both supported a definition in the prior round. There's no reason to change that now.
Re: Intentions
Pro didn't include an all-organism-encompassing special meaning for genetically modified organism in his pre-acceptance disclosure. GMO is a multi-word term. Pro's pre-acceptance definitions were all single-word definitions. If Pro wanted to use a special meaning for GMO then he should have put that special meaning in the pre-acceptance disclosures. He didn't do it. The fact that he didn't do it suggests that Pro's intentions were to use the usual and ordinary meaning initially and then switch the definition to a special one after the debate had been accepted.
I didn't intend to debate this subject under the definition that Pro is contending to use here. Pro is saying that he intended to use a special definition for GMO. My thinking prior to accepting this debate was that Pro would argue something like GMO's are essential for human life because the earth's human population has become so large such that it can't be sustained without relying upon this crop technology, or something like that. It did cross my mind that Pro might try some definition switching, but it struck me as unlikely that Pro would try that because it's a weak argument. I saw the single-word definitions, but I have seen other debates Pro has done before where he included single-word definitions but didn't try to do any cheesy definition switching nonsense. So, that didn't really tip me off.
Re: Conclusion
I deny and challenge as unsubstantiated each and
every assertion Pro made under the "conclusion" heading.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Conclusion
Alright, let's wrap this up.
Con has now sealed his fate by citing site rules on conduct violations.
Ugh, Con.
Ugh, Con.
I'll review my case, Con's concessions, and the latest citation on conduct violations.
Pro's Case
1. All three essential macromolecules (proteins, fats, carbohydrates) come from genetically modified organisms and Con does not dispute this, in fact Con failed to respond to my challenge from the first round,
"I challenge Con to find foods with essential macromolecules that are NOT directly/indirectly derived from genetically modified organisms."
2. The phrase "genetically modified organism" has been corroborated by a source that Con considers credible and appropriate to mean genetically modified by nature.
This would encompass ALL living organisms on earth as they have all descended with genetic modification precisely as my 1st round source on evolution states.
3. Rule #3 was broken by Con overtly.
Con broke the debate rules by breaking rule #3 which explicitly stated he was to refrain from the debate, but Con either didn't read the rules or doesn't care about them, either of which should warrant, at the least, a loss of conduct point or, at the appropriate level, a complete loss for Con.
Con's Concessions
Con explains:
"If all organisms are genetically modified organisms, as Pro contends, then the resolution would be the functional equivalent of "Consuming food from organisms is essential to human life."
My response:
Given the agreed-to-be-credible-and-appropriate-by-Con Wikipedia DEFINITION, the debate's description's definitions, and my first round's sources, the resolution IS the equivalent of "Consuming food from organisms is essential to human life."
Therefore, since Con agrees that this sentence is in fact true, and readers can clearly see that Pro agrees here too, then we have a clear concession that the resolution is NECESSARILY true.
If you are voting and you find this sentence to be true, you must vote Pro.
Con concedes:
"Any credible source would be appropriate. Pro suggests the use of Wikipedia and Oxford Dictionaries. I have no problems with these sources."
My response:
Ok, so this now throws away that whole idea of a "fringe definition," it shows that the most common of encyclopedias uses parlance that includes naturally modified organisms, and it also has Con having NO PROBLEMS with my source whose literally titled "Definition" of Genetically Modified Organisms has "by nature" in the definition.
This seals the deal.
No problems with my sources readers.
No problems with my sources readers.
None!
Con cites:
"The following is the standard for conduct points in voting:'One debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause.'"
My response:
I will cite this as well, because Con broke rule #3, necessarily taking away from the debate I intended to have, and he is also a fervent and unregulated harasser of me, so he really sucks a lot.
Con should probably fuck off.
Fuck off Con.
Fuck off Con.
Fuck off indeed.
Vote Pro
Con
#8
Re: Conduct
Pro alleges that I broke the debate rules by accepting this debate. Previously, Pro claimed that he requested that I refrain from debating here.
First, these rules were set by Pro and Pro stated explicitly that the rules were not binding in his pre-acceptance disclosures. (see debate description: "rules and definitions are not binding on voters or debaters") In light of that, Pro's allegation of a rule violation doesn't makes no sense. I generally respect debate rules. I would not have accepted this debate had Pro not characterized his rules as non-binding.
Second, Pro never requested that I refrain from accepting this debate. Pro did make a request voters, but other than that no request is apparent. (see debate description: "this is my formal request to voters to follow the rules and to use the definitions below") I never received any request from Pro not to accept this debate.
So, what do we have here? Well, by the looks of things, I reasonably should have been aware that Pro did not want to debate me, but I accepted the debate anyway. What I'm "guilty" of is consciously disregarding what Pro wanted. There's not much wrong with that. The standard for awarding conduct points encompasses conduct that is "excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules". What I've done is not sufficient to justify a conduct point under that standard. Moreover, awarding a conduct point requires "some comparatively [sic] analysis between both debaters’ conduct." (https://www.debateart.com/rules)
If you do choose to consider awarding a point for conduct, then you should compare my conduct to Pro's, as is appropriate under the applicable standard for awarding conduct points. For comparative purposes, here are some examples of Pro's conduct which may be considered rude and/or profane -
Pro alleges that I broke the debate rules by accepting this debate. Previously, Pro claimed that he requested that I refrain from debating here.
First, these rules were set by Pro and Pro stated explicitly that the rules were not binding in his pre-acceptance disclosures. (see debate description: "rules and definitions are not binding on voters or debaters") In light of that, Pro's allegation of a rule violation doesn't makes no sense. I generally respect debate rules. I would not have accepted this debate had Pro not characterized his rules as non-binding.
Second, Pro never requested that I refrain from accepting this debate. Pro did make a request voters, but other than that no request is apparent. (see debate description: "this is my formal request to voters to follow the rules and to use the definitions below") I never received any request from Pro not to accept this debate.
So, what do we have here? Well, by the looks of things, I reasonably should have been aware that Pro did not want to debate me, but I accepted the debate anyway. What I'm "guilty" of is consciously disregarding what Pro wanted. There's not much wrong with that. The standard for awarding conduct points encompasses conduct that is "excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules". What I've done is not sufficient to justify a conduct point under that standard. Moreover, awarding a conduct point requires "some comparatively [sic] analysis between both debaters’ conduct." (https://www.debateart.com/rules)
If you do choose to consider awarding a point for conduct, then you should compare my conduct to Pro's, as is appropriate under the applicable standard for awarding conduct points. For comparative purposes, here are some examples of Pro's conduct which may be considered rude and/or profane -
"Well, shit." *Profane
"my opponents incapability" *Rude - ad hominem
" 'but I don't like that definition...muh...muh' " *Rude - Mocking behavior
"Con's fucking wrong" *Profane
"fuck common parlance" *Profane
"a delinquent debater" *Rude - ad hominem
"it's an open fucking debate" *Profane
"he is also a fervent and unregulated harasser" *Rude - ad hominem
"he really sucks a lot" *Rude - ad hominem
"fuck off" *Profane / Rude
"Fuck off " *Profane / Rude
"Fuck off " *Profane / Rude
Re: Essential macromolecules
Pro claims that I do not dispute that essential nutrients come from GMOs. I dispute that essential nutrients come exclusively from GMOs, but I acknowledge that GMOs do produce essential nutrients.
Pro has challenged me to provide an example of essential nutrients that are not "directly/indirectly derived from [GMOs]." This challenge is irrelevant, but a clear example would be the essential nutrients from non-GMO sources, especially during ancient times (e.g. nuts, berries, basic crops).
Pro and I both agree that Wikipedia is an acceptable source. Pro cites the following text from the Wikipedia article on GMOs:
At its broadest it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature.[1][2]
Pro points to the fact that I
accepted the source and claims that this means that I must accept this
definition. Pro is wrong. First, Wikipedia didn't say that this was the
definition for a GMO. Wikipedia merely cited this as an example of a
definition. Pro took the definition out of context. Here is the full context:
What constitutes a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not always clear and can vary widely. At its broadest it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature.[1][2] Taking a less broad view it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans, which would include all crops and livestock. In 1993 the Encyclopedia Britannica defined genetic engineering as "any of a wide range of techniques ... among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., "test-tube" babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation."[3] The European Union (EU) included a similarly broad definition in early reviews, specifically mentioning GMOs being produced by "selective breeding and other means of artificial selection."[4] They later excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[5]
This paragraph from the Wikipedia article shows many separate definitions:
1. it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature.
2. it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans
3. any of a wide range of techniques ... among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., "test-tube" babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation.
4. GMOs being produced by "selective breeding and other means of artificial selection."
5. excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.
There is no reason to choose the 1st definition over the others. Wikipedia does not endorse any of these definitions. Wikipedia's use of these definitions is illustrative, not prescriptive. Pro's contention that the definition which is most favorable to Pro should be used isn't justified merely by a general acceptance of Wikipedia as a source. Beyond that, I reiterate that the 1st definition is a fringe definition that isn't consistent with the usual and ordinary meaning of GMO. The definition lacks the criteria of artificialness and direct alteration. Furthermore, as I also stated in the prior round, the type of genetic alteration referenced within the underlying articles Wikipedia references bears some resemblance to genetic engineering techniques in that bacteria were directly altering the DNA of the host organism. This type of alteration doesn't suggest a meaning inclusive of every type of genetic alteration conceivable, as Pro contends.
Pro strongly endorsed Oxford Dictionaries as a source. Oxford Dictionaries was the original source Pro used for his definitions in the pre-acceptance disclosures and Pro also suggested using it as a source in round 2. Oxford Dictionaries has a definition -
(of an organism or crop) containing genetic material that has been artificially altered so as to produce a desired characteristic.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genetically_modified
If this source is used, then genetically modified organism does not include every organism in existence, as Pro contends, because there must be some artificial alteration. Let us apply Pro's reasoning against him. Pro accepted the source. The source has a definition. Pro is therefore bound by that definition.
I reiterate that Pro and I previously accepted the following definition from Wikipedia:
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism
Pro has now walked back his
acceptance of that definition and has provided no explanation for doing so. Pro simply stopped talking about it.
This is the original definition I suggested from Encyclopedia Brittanica:
This is the original definition I suggested from Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Genetically modified organism (GMO), organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products.
https://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism
Pro has provided no reason to reject
this definition.
The definitions from the available
sources strongly support the conclusion that the meaning of "genetically
modified organism" is not inclusive of every organism in existence, as Pro
contends. Rather, the meaning is that the organisms must have undergone some very
direct and especially artificial alteration to their DNA either in the current
generation or at some point in their ancestry. I reiterate my argument that
human life was and continues to be largely sustained on organisms that have not
been genetically modified. The resolution is thus negated.
Conclusion:
Vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Counter vote-bomb.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Counter-vote bomb.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con violate rules, full loss
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con broke 2 rules, auto loss.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Summary :
A.) Rules. Pro clearly stated the rules were optional unless accepted.
This is a debate - con makes an argument as to why the rules shouldn’t apply, if pro wanted the rules to apply, he should have at the very least made an argument justifying why the rules he provided should be followed. Simply repeatedly asserting that con broke the rules (which con negates), is not a recipe for winning the point.
In fact, at several points - with definitions and the rules - pro gave the impression that he forgot this was a debate - and that he had to provide arguments to support his position. I appreciate this was not the debate pro wanted, but you simply cannot respond to what amounts to the best kritik I’ve seen on this site with emphatic assertions that your opponent should not be kritiking you.
The final round was even worse it bordered surreal, where pro spent the entire round telling voters how pro had conceded and his definition was correct, immediately after con had mounted a blistering rebuttal of each one of those points.
B.) If this was intended to be a debate, it cannot be a debate if we use pros rules and definitions, as the resolution would be affirmed no matter how well con argued - if it wasn’t intended to be a debate, then the definitions are clearly detrimental and should be rejected to allow con to have a debate.
Either way, pros all-encompassing original definitions must be rejected on these grounds. (Note: Con essentially affirmed these points during the debate). Con wins.
C.) Con argued that multi word terms cannot be defined on a word by word basis, pro has no rebuttal.
As a result Pros definitions must be treated as incomplete. Con wins
D.) Pros second definition was backed up solely by single word functional definitions - which con had already demonstrated was invalid (pro dropped this), and which pro refutes using the same source ( Pro dropped this definition). Con demonstrated third definition was taken out of context and didn’t mean what pro claimed it did, using examples and sources.
As a result, pros definitions must be rejected. Con wins
As con argued, easily, that the common parlance definition, the Wikipedia definition, the Brittanica definition, and the dictionary definition agreed with him: and pro did not refute any of them: cons definitions should be accepted. Con wins
Conclusion:
This wasn’t even even close. Nor even close to close. Con gave me at least 3 reasons to vote for him, any of them would have won on their own. Pro made little attempt to defend any of his positions. Arguments to con.
Conduct:
Pro was profane throughout “fuck common parlance”, “fuck you con”. Pro was rude and profane throughout.
By his arguments, pro was clearly intending this debate to be unwinnable by the definitions he posted - setting out to create a debate that you cannot lose because of the rules and definition you try and impose rather than how good your arguments is just plain shitty and merits markdown.
Regardless of motivation - death argues in good faith - rather than simply abusing/trolling pro. As a result, the only specific conduct violation is that he accepted the debate knowing pro didn’t want him to.
In my view, pros violations are far more severe thus conduct to con.
Sources:
Con won this debate on his definitions, which he pinned on his sources. He used multiple independent sources to validate his definitions mean what he claimed, then when pro cited his definitions from wikipedia, tore those sources apart, and showed they actually refuted pros position - he did this at least three times (genetic engineering, Wikipedia definition twice), and it got to the point I almost felt bad for pro.
Remainder of RFD from comment #100
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Essentially this debate hinges on two arguments.
1, That "genetic engineering techniques" should be taken as a whole rather than as a part
2, What is and should be considered a genetic engineering technique.
1. I find Con to be more convincing for the use of a multiword phrase to be taken as a whole rather than as a part. As Con correctly points out, in common parlance, "genetic engineering techniques" indeed would be taken as a whole rather than as the sum of parts. Pro argues that his intention was to argue this debate with the each specific word meaning in mind, however this is not made clear in the slightest in the resolution, and hence the resolution can only be interpreted as the phrase "genetic engineering techniques"
2. Both debaters have resorted to using dictionary definitions for their arguments. I note that Pro has shifted to a more favourable definition when confronted by the definition from Britannica and relies on definitions that state GMO's are organisms have been modified by genetic engineering techniques. Pro then attempts to show that definitions for genetic engineering techniques includes naturally modified organisms. As Con correctly points out however, Pro's sources indicate that only at the broadest use of such a term is it applied to animals changed naturally. Con provides several sources which argue that such a broad definition is a fringe definition of the phrase. Pro has little argument that it is not a fringe definition, nor why a fringe definition should be used regardless, only that wikipedia has included such a possible definition and hence should be used. However Con has countered this point regardless. And hence I found Con more convincing
The thing is, you should be happy this isn't IRL, you'd be in prison by now if what you're saying is true.
You'll never get the last word.
Fuck off please?
Haha. Is that all you got?
Um, if you were to exclude me from one of your debates publicly, I'd have zero problem with it, in fact, I'd feel like I'd done right in the world, and it's not an etiquette charge "mate," it's a "if someone didn't actually leave me alone IRL, I'd fucking kick the shit out of them" charge. I've requested you to leave me alone, you won't, so IRL, this is the point where I'd kick the living shit out of you. Fuck off.
Privately requesting that would be more respectful. When you state publicly and repeatedly that you're intentionally excluding such and such, tu quoque on the etiquette charge mate.
You can't see how someone publicly requesting that you stay away from them requires you to honor that?
Do you violate people's personal space IRL if they've asked you to leave them alone?
Really think here.
You have no rights which I am bound to respect.
Didn't bother to read the rules?
Please leave me alone.
Transparent cowardice is still cowardice.
Ok, fair point, but I've been given so much crap for not defining every term or omitting particular term's definitions, so I figured I'd be as transparent as possible.
I didn't say it was inappropriate, I said that it allows you to paint with a pretty broad brush when it comes to what counts as genetic engineering. The terminology is accurate, and i agree that crossbreeding is a form of genetic engineering - hell, my lab does it. I just think it hampers the debate to define it in this manner.
While I appreciate your analysis, if you think about genetic engineering and what it actually is, you may be surprised at how appropriate defining the three terms is.
I've done genetic engineering before, and it's how I'm a father...
Good luck Pro.
I think this would be a very interesting debate if the definitions took “genetically modified organism” together instead of defining the words separately. The way it’s defined now would encompass all domesticated plants and animals, insofar as they are genetically modified by the process of interbreeding. Defining GMOs as the collection of those 3 terms excludes the classical means used to randomly alter the genomes of plants and animals in order to get the best species for general consumption, and would focus the debate on specific insertions into the genome aimed at adding specific traits. I can see how someone might still be able to argue the Con position with the debate phrased as is, though I think it’s much more difficult.
Never mind, I forgot you're banned from this debate.
Oh RM, just take the debate if you're so sure, otherwise, please stop deterring people from my debates.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT ABOUT ARTIFICIAL GMO, IT'S A TRAP.
We all naturally evolved and so did plants and animals THIS IS NATURAL GMO AND THIS WILL BE PRIMARY ANGLE!
Like clockwork this guy.
ALTERNATIVE SEMANTIC ABUSE ANGLE::::::::::::::::::
HE WILL WAY THAT we eat GMOs at times, THEREFORE IT'S FOOD AND FOOD IS ESSENTIAL TO LIFE
this is a logical fallacy, OF COURSE bit since........
EVEN THE WORD 'MODIFIED' IS ALTERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE WORD MODIFIED I GET IT NOW WAHOOOOOOOHA
You must have prophetic powers...
HUMAN-DEFINITION WARNING, HE IS GOING TO SAY THAT GMO IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF WHAT HUMANS MAKE AND DO
ALERT ALERT, LIFE-DEFINITION ALLOWS ACTIVITIES TO BE 'ESSENTIAL' to THE LIVING BEING.
Alert!!!!! Alert !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT ACCEPT THIS SEMANTIC HOOLABULLOO DEBATE THIS IS YOUR DAILY WARNING.
Cue RM posting to the debate discouraging people from accepting in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
I know you'll probably argue that everything has been genetically modified, but I hope you also touch up on the importance of stuff like what they do at Monsanto et al. Biotechnology is super important
Word, hopefully someone will accept this.
I was thinking about doing a debate on this. I fully support GMOs and run a few GMO pages on facebook. Good luck.
I support GMOs.