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
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

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu

The similar phrases from sources and conduct for MagicAintReal and DebateVoter... I counted 10. Not only are they both in the RFDs, but they also appear in the exact same order in the RFDs. That's astronomically unlikely to be a coincidence.

https://imgur.com/a/yhJY9Y0

https://www.debateart.com/debates/478?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=7

-->
@David

If you look at that you will see what's happening. MagicAintReal cheated in this debate, multi-voted on RM's debate with Alec, and probably cheated in his debate with you, too.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/522

https://www.debateart.com/participants/b9_ntt

-->
@Death23

Pro got a little testy and said to Con, “There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.”

Pro got a little snippy at the end and said "There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one."

Instead of just nicely waiving the round without attempting to influence voters in a last ditch effort, Pro says “Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure”

when Pro was supposed to just kindly waive the round he said "Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...
Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure."

this is both unfair to Con because it attempts to soften the voters one way AND it goes against the rules which say “my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point” because it’s ultimately not a waiving of the round, but a rude little jab at Con attempting to swing the debate.

This is both not true and a conduct violation in my view because Pro was instructed to waive the last round, however commented regarding new arguments which to me is not waiving the round at all, it's trying to attempt to sway the voters one last time so conduct point Con, as per the rules.

"The discussion on dictatorship and democracy I felt was slightly irrelevant, though it seemed to me that neither debater was arguing for dictatorship and they both agreed with democracy." -MagicAintReal

"The discussion on dictatorship and democracy is moot because both debaters agree that democracy is good and dictatorship is bad" -DebateVoter

lol

-->
@David
@bsh1

I would very, very strongly suggest that moderators take a look at the first vote DebateVoter placed, and search for the phrase “The discussion on dictatorship and democracy” - and see if you can see any patterns or similarities between what DebateVoter in that paragraph and anyone else.

Then, if you see there are some similarities, I would then strongly suggest comparing DebateVoter’s and that persons argument points raised paragraph by paragraph, source points, and conduct points to see if you see any patterns - such as all identical reasoning and points being raised in pretty much an identical order and differening primarily in, say, specific wording - as if one RFD was simply a line by line rewritten version of the other.

Then ask whether it is within the real of normal coincidence that:
- two people would vote in the last minute of the debate AND
- their RFDs were identically reasoned, and granted the same number of points AND
- one of the people signed up at the same time as the debate vote was due, to vote at the last minute AND
- that person was never seen again until this vote AND
- one of the persons has a suspicious generic name AND
- one of the persons was involved in personal animus with the person voted against by both voters AND
- one of the persons taunted that person sarcastically about the loss right after AND
- one of the persons has a history of grudge voting against people he’s entangled in arguments with AND
- the final vote was necessary to generate the win

Obvious sock puppet is obvious - and in the abscence of specific debating and voting controls that we had in DDO, if you’re going to let what amounts to one of the most blantant sock puppet voting accounts stand, then you’re going to make it open season for EVERYONE who knows how to google the phrase “VPN” and is pissed off about being on the losing end of a debate.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Nobody has to do what you say.

-->
@Death23

The debater told not to participate and the voter told not to participate are participating the most...that's non-sarcastically shocking.

-->
@MagicAintReal

The arguments absent from that RFD are the same arguments that you didn't talk about in the debate or the comments. Shocking!

-->
@David
@bsh1

The person uttering nonsense to you (Ramshutu) is literally the person not allowed to vote on or participate in this debate, and now is threatening some member's credibility by saying they're suspicious or whatever.
I find it suspicious that members who were told to refrain from this debate have not been moderated yet and even continue to post on here... I mean how many Restraining Orders does one need to get moderated around here?
That's the real suspicion.

-->
@David

Here's the standard:

"they must survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision. This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate, or must explain why certain arguments need not be weighed"

The only mention of Con's arguments in DebateVoter's RFD are as follows:

"Con points out, in common parlance, genetically modified means modified by scientist lab people. [...] he does not believe that you can call this genetically modified organisms. [...] no matter how weird Con tries to tell me it is."

Terrible moderation decision.

-->
@David
@bsh1

Here are the primary arguments from death that DebateVoter did not directly assess or even reference:

1.) That pro said the rules were non binding
2.) That word by word definitions can not be used to define multi-word phrases.
3.) That the definition from Brittanica agrees with his position
4.) That Wikipedia disagrees with pros second definition
5.) That pro is using his third definition out of the obvious context it is used in
6.) That pros third definition requires genes to be directly altered given the sources the definition uses
7.) That pro intentional mislead with the resolution of the topic by introducing a redundant term commonly understood to mean something else.

These are literally the 7 most important point that con raises and pretty much the entirety of his position, for which none are addressed or even referenced by this voter. This account - which given the name alone should raise alarm bells, and who’s pattern of voting has literally been to sign on to vote to be part of multiple last minute votes on a debate - made to make RM lose, then to vote on this one - not only is his vote completely insufficient on its face as a result of the above - but if you ever wanted a more blatant example of a suspicious account setup solely for the purpose of gaming the voting system - this is it.

The vote should be removed, and the account should have its voting rights suspended. The fact this even needs to be considered at this point, given how outrageously suspicious this account activity is - is astounding.

-->
@David

Your naivety is hilarious.

-->
@DebateVoter

Vote Reported: DebateVoter // Mod Action: Not removed

Reason for non removal: This vote is sufficient.

-->
@DebateVoter

Hey you're the first person to actually follow the rules, thank you reasonableness.
Thanks for the vote

-->
@RationalMadman

Lol I'm not going to let him win with bullshit votes.

-->
@Death23

In a few days, bifolkal will vote for him with just as many points, be worried.

-->
@David
@whiteflame

https://i.imgur.com/BgQoZPJ.jpg

-->
@Death23

“Can I ask you a quick question about your vote?”

It’s a trap!

-->
@MagicAintReal

Once upon a time I voted on one of your debates. You started PM-ing me invective. I told you to go away. What did you do after I told you to go away?

RM, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I wrote 3 rules that disallowed people who were on restraining orders from me because they cannot leave me alone or are incessant harassers of me.
Your debate I voted on did not request that none of those individuals vote or participate, but in this case, THE EXACT people told not to engage with me did so any way.
I want you to think of a time IRL where someone asked you to leave them alone...what would happen if you persisted after they CLEARLY requested you to leave them alone?
Let me see that RM passion and answer honestly.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I'm not controlled by requests, rules, insults or threats. I will debate or vote on what I wish, when I wish.

Hi Magic, please do not launch unwarranted personal attacks on me.

This current post aside, I have not “engaged with you”, and have no intention of doing so: I have purposefully blocked you as it’s the easiest method to prevent excessive PMs, or insipid debate comment back and forth.

If you feel my vote is unfair, or unreasonable: please feel free to report it. If the moderation team feels that I am not following the site policy with my vote, I will be happy to correct it.

At this time, I have voted on 146 (100%) debates since I have been active on this site (which includes voting for you 70% of the time - including voting for you yesterday) If you feel this record is somehow deliberately targeting you, or is unfair to you - this is a moderation issue, and I will be happy to answer any of their questions on the matter. I also plan on maintaining my 100% record.

Just as a heads up for any future debates - I think it’s fair for voters to ignore any rule that is used solely or expressly for the purposes of improving the rule makers chances of victory, this is a debate site, and trying to win debates by any other means than by being a better debater should be rejected - and I will advocate and happily debate in favour of this position.

I will not comment any further to your comments in this debate, my RFD is fair, and exhaustive - and speaks for itself. I am not targeting you, or harassing you: I am simply providing a detailed, and genuine RFD on every debate I can - which I will continue to do.

You sure didn't mind giving me a loss vs Alec with your buddies and intimidating me by various means outside of what's allowed or asked for by me.

Why do you only cry like a bitch when people do it to you?

-->
@David

That a debater requests that rules be followed isn't enough to stop people from voting on debates or participating in them.
You guys are fucking assholes Ramshutu and Death23.
Show some fucking respect for people who wish not to engage with either of you.
Really, both of you need to leave me the fuck alone.

-->
@Death23

NP, it wasn’t the prettiest of approaches, but it was one of the best executed debates I’ve seen here so far.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thank you for taking the time to work it up. Much appreciated.

As a result of this point, and as pro dropped it, con managed to demonstrate pros definitions are incomplete/insufficient, and the functional definition pro is using cannot be accepted on its own

6.) Con New definition

Con cites a definition from the encyclopedia Brittanica. Pro asks why this encyclopedia is a valid definition - I find that absurd. Pro doesn’t actually give any argument as to why cons definition is not valid or inappropriate, and this was noted.

If pro can’t or won’t tell me why I shouldn’t accept encyclopedia Brittanica, I am forced to accept it as a valid definition.

7.) pro new definition 1

Pro offers an alternative new Wikipedia definition by genetic engineering and argues that it supports his position. He uses the same single word definition method that con already refuted (con points that out), con also points out the definitions of genetic engineering techniques when using the same encyclopedia supports his narrower definition.

Con puts multiple definitions from the dictionary and Wikipedia that support this interpretation - and is in line with cons definition.

Pro drops this entire definition

8.) pro new definition 2.

Pro moves onto his 3rd definition, taking a snippet of the Wikipedia definition discussion, and claiming it supports his position.

Con refutes this - by pointing out that pro is taking the quote out of context, and the extended text sides with him. In addition, con also points out that the sources used to support the definition pro claims is broad, actually defines genetic engineering more narrowly, making it clear that pros interpretation is wrong.

For reasons I simply cannot fathom, pro spent the majority of time talking about how the definition agrees with him, bragging that pro conceded, and spends absolutely no time refuting this part of cons argument.

1.) Resolution.

Both sides justified their side resolution given their application of their definitions, so it comes down to which definition should be applied. Pros is incredibly broad and seems to cover all organisms, con appears to be using a standard encyclopedia definition.

2.) Common parlance

Con points out the common parlance definition of GMO is much narrower than pros. “Fuck common parlance”, is not a good rebuttal, and pro offers no justification of why his original definition is more appropriate.

3.) Redundant

Con argues the way pro applies his definitions means “genetically modified” is redundant, and has no useful meaning, as there is no value added by using “genetically modified organism” over “organism”

Pro offers no rebuttal to this.

4.) Trap debate.

Con argues that pro intentionally made a normal sounding resolution, then switched to a restrictive definition in order to trap people into an unwinnable debate.

Pros only response in answer to this being a deliberate attempt to switch definitions was to argue it was a debate that you had to accept. This appears to be a non-sequitor that doesn’t address cons point, con points out that a trap debate requires acceptance, so this isn a distinguishing feature.

This was dropped by pro.

5.) Multi-word phrases are more than the sum of their parts

Con argues that, like other words, pro should not simply be able to define the multi word phrase based solely on the individual words.

Pro quote mines con: when con says the definition is “related to but independent of” pro takes this quote out of context and demands, unconvincingly, that con is arguing the definition is completely independent of any of the individual parts of the word - a point con refutes a round later.

Other than this attempt, pro offers no meaning rebuttal.

-->
@Death23

The hypocrisy in what he's accusing of vs what he's done to me and others is so hilarious and sickening at the same time.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Feel free to have the moderators look in to it. I don't play dirty like that.

Don't buy it, sorry.

-->
@MagicAintReal

He's not me. His account has been reasonably active on the forums. It doesn't look like he just popped in. Perhaps you missed that. https://www.debateart.com/participants/dustryder/forum_posts

-->
@dustryder

Your explanation was clear and the time you took to work it up is appreciated. I would caution against getting bogged down in a back and forth. I spent much time writing an RFD on one of his debates before and tried very hard to explain it to him. It didn't work.

California's a popular place, I suppose.

-->
@dustryder

Yeah, but he overtly accepted my sources that supported the definition that explicitly allowed for the definitions I was using.
It's silly that I even have to point that out.
I use a definition from a source Con accepted as credible, it supported EXACTLY my case for organisms being GMOs, and it negated how "fringe" it was supposed to be because Con's overt acceptance of the source.
I'm sorry you can't look at this in an unbiased way, really.

Also, it's rather odd that you wait such a long time to be on this site, just to pop in and vote up death23, which makes me think this talk to you is pointless, and you're death23.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I see no reason to award automatically win/loss if both sides have argued faithfully. To me, continuing to debate him in full despite the rules you yourself have set out constitutes tacit approval.

As for my vote, to be clear, I think Death23 has successfully negated the resolution by arguing that your use of term "Genetic engineering techniques" is too broad to be applicable to naturally developed organisms. And hence, they cannot be considered "Genetically modified organisms". Since these definitions were not set in the description, I think this is fair. I apologise if my RFD did not make this clear.

-->
@MagicAintReal

What did you mean when you said "the rules and definitions are not binding"? Why do you say that the voter's RFD "admitted that the resolution was true"?

-->
@dustryder

Hey Death23, nice vote.
Also, thanks for ignoring rule 1 and 3.
Also your vote admitted that the resolution was true, though broad, so noodle that for a while.

-->
@dustryder

Appreciate the vote.

It means you owe for prior misconduct and I'm here to get even.

Oh, I get it...except he just lost by accepting wikipedia's agreement with me.
Ouch.

The red means in debt. I think Death 23 is saying that he won the debate.

I was lost by that comment...what was meant by "the red?"

-->
@MagicAintReal

You have a bill to pay. All your pissing and moaning and other annoying bullshit has left you quite in the red. I'm here to collect.

-->
@Death23

I admitted that it's possible someone could have used my comments as a basis for rationalizing their vote. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

That's check and mate, and this time I did it 3rd round...nice.

-->
@whiteflame

I'm satisfied that you know now that you shouldn't have done it. I have no further interest in the matter.

-->
@whiteflame

Do you think you should have done it?

-->
@Death23

Dude, this was 2 years ago. I don't remember the specifics of what led me to post on there. I recall Magic asking me to vote on it - I didn't end up doing that, but I did keep track of the comments for a while. Not sure what incited the need to post in that particular instance and for that particular purpose.

As for issues with F-16's RFD... again, dude, this is 2 years ago. I'm not going to try to go back through the debate and piece together whether he came up with a reasonable RFD at this point. All I can say is that it's pretty damn unlikely that he saw my post and thought "well, I guess it's time to rationalize a decision for Death23's opponent!" If you want to call him out for shifting the burden onto you, go ahead. I've seen it happen in numerous RFDs, several of which were on my own debates.

-->
@whiteflame

There.