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

-->
@MagicAintReal

https://i.imgur.com/ktSgzHR.jpg kekeke

I feel like, on one hand, it's impressive that 4 votes were able to be cast within what appears to be a very short time span, but that it's sad that the ability to do it at all is not only valid, but will go unpunished...I'm not even mad, I'm impressed.

-->
@Ramshutu

You no say?
The mod team is doing a full interrogation and investigation.

I’m starting to get the feeling that these were not legitimate voters.

All four accounts has been banned. We are going to be doing a full investigation.

I think I finally like Death23.

It's obvious as hell that the accounts voting PRO were Magic's multi-accounts, but mods suspending vote privileges based strictly on circumstantial information can lead to some scary precedent in theory.

Talk about a temper tantrum.

Wow, I thought for sure Magic had this debate in the bag...oh well, nice bump for Death23.

-->
@MagicAintReal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bSEfx6D8mA

-->
@MagicAintReal

Nice try shitbag.

-->
@David

Please, do the same investigation process for bifolkal and the other 2.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I meant nefarious plans. Reporting votes is OK.

-->
@dustryder

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

What I meant by justice is that Virt was going to come in and fix some problems...I was not planning anything, I was referring to moderators bringing forth justice, not me.

-->
@Ramshutu

That's the plan, but he played dirty. This is a new tactic that I'm not accustomed to.

-->
@Death23

Romans 12:20 my good friend. Romans 12:20.

I very much feel that the approach of destroying him in a debate is the best approach. You don’t need to bring a spade, he’ll bury himself.

-->
@Ramshutu

Yes, everyone knows what he did. Multi-accounting, grudge voting, ad hominem attacks, and threats of violence, including death threats. Yet, he's still here, making posts in these comments, happy as a clown. The logical inference is that there aren't significant consequences for breaking the code of the conduct.

-->
@David

Your moderation team could have questioned me regarding any circumstantial evidence you used to justify your restriction of my voting ability. Yet, you decided that this would be of little value. For shame.

-->
@Ramshutu

Anytime. Our hands are a bit tied and we have no definitive proof one way or the other, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant this move.

-->
@David

That’s actually a great compromise. Thank you guys.

-->
@MagicAintReal

If you're planning anything, it will not work. I will be ready for that and I will retaliate. You know that moderation is weak. You know that I'm good at this game.

-->
@Ramshutu
@Death23

The mod team has decided, for now, to forbid the two from voting on each other’s debates and from both voting on the same debate.

-->
@Death23

Look, he knows he’s lying, we know he’s lying, everyone knows he’s lying.

It’s now just down to whether mods will take action on obvious sock puppets without specific IP proof. It’s would be an exceptionally dangerous precent for them to set.

-->
@Ramshutu

You were supposed to wait for him to respond affirmatively.

Yeah, so I worked my RFD in a similar manner to a vote placed before mine...same smell

-->
@Death23

Kinda hard for DebateVoter to copy Magics RFD when he posted his RFD first.

The gears of justice move slowly, but move they do indeed.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Ah, so it was DebateVoter copying from your RFD then in the RM // Alec debate. Is that the explanation?

-->
@DebateVoter

haha, that was a cute noob-tell try.

-->
@RationalMadman

Can you bring my privileges back? Who do I talk to for that? Why can't I vote anymore?

Psychological slip. In order to separate himself from his alt, he typed without punctuation on 'magicaintreal' when he says 'Yeah sorry man' but has had OCD punctuation in almost all other posts/comments.

Image in case he alters it since: https://i.imgur.com/drZr7io.png

Note: editing a comment doesn't add a pencil icon.

-->
@DebateVoter

Yeah sorry man

-->
@David

Why are my voting allowances revoked? I spent a lot of time on this vote and i think moderation accidentally removed it. I can write a new RFD if needed.

-->
@Death23

I'll look at all this sometime tonight.

Also, a coma is completely different than going out from a blood choke...I can see you've never been blood choked before, they're very non-injurious.

Hahaha, I said that if this were IRL, which it is not, and someone refused to leave me alone in my personal space, i would react violently, and I'd assume others would behave that way too.
Seriously, if you made it clear that someone should stay away from you and they didn't IRL, threatening your personal freedom, what would you do?

No, you're not. You threatened to beat a guy into a fucking coma in this debate comments section itself, earlier.

Dude, I'm the victim of harassers, not the other way around.

I did, it's why I began to fear your vote-terrorism and after 1 vote on your debates, stayed away unless I voted for you.

You reacted as predicted, not too unreasonably for a criminal-minded thug.

Well, I for one do not want any unfair or frivolous votes, just to be clear, but wow.
Who knew I had followers...who like me no less.

Someone set us up the vote bomb.

What the literal fuck is going on?

-->
@Death23

Congrats, shame they couldnt do it for me vs alec.

-->
@David

For great justice!

-->
@DebateVoter

Sources
Again, Con agreed that Pro's sources were reliable and credible and have no problems and it was with these sources, Wikipdeia and Oxford Dictionaries that Pro showed that all organisms were genetically modified by evolution and with University of Berkeley to show how the modification happens in evolution. Con's sources were fine except for one that cited Cali law "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." This actually worked for Pro because Pro points out that it was clear what meaning he intended in the debate, having us accept his intended meaning so this source works against Con and for Pro who already used sources to win the argument. Sources to Pro.

-->
@DebateVoter

Conduct
Con says he doesn't need to follow the rules of the debate, but Rule 1 says that debaters need to put some phrase in the first round to show acceptance and that this debater, Death23 cannot participate. The debater requested this quite clearly, so Con violated rules and Con should follow the definitions from the debate description, which support Pro's case quite nicely. I was once a stand up comedian in college and I had a heckler who would show up at some of my shows in the area, so I requested to the bar owners to at least not let him in when I was performing, and they were all understanding and saw to my wishes. I would expect such a thing for a debate performance. If you don't want to argue with someone on something, you should have the ability to request that. I found it very disrespectful for this person to accept the debate when it was requested that he not. Also, the swearing was rather over the top from Pro, but I like a little pepper in my steak sometimes, it shows passion, and I might have used some words at that heckler if he were to show up again, so i can relate a little, but the overt violations of the rules make the conduct vote easy for Pro.
Sources
Again, Con agreed that Pro's sources were reliable and credible and have no problems and it was with these sources, Wikipdeia and Oxford Dictionaries that Pro showed that all organisms were genetically modified by evolution and with University of Berkeley to show how the modification happens in evolution. Con's sources were fine except for one that cited Cali law "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." This actually worked for Pro because Pro points out that it was clear what meaning he intended in the debate, having us accept his intended meaning so this source works against Con and for Pro who already used sources to win the argument.

-->
@DebateVoter

I feel Pro wins the day here because Con violated two rules and had arguments and sources that were essentially agreed by Con.
Arguments
Pro argues that humans must consume living organisms for macros and that all living organisms were genetically modified from evolving. I find this to be a sneaky type of argument because, as Con points out, in common parlance, genetically modified means modified by scientist lab people. But if you look the debate description definitions, what Pro points out, perfectly align with all living organisms because they evolved and descend with modification. Con agrees all organisms were genetically modified by nature, but he does not believe that you can call this genetically modified organisms. I was leaning Con at this point, right up until Con said something bizarre. He agreed that Pro's sources, including the sources used in the debate description he argued he need not follow were all credible and he had no problem with them. Pro brought forth a very clear definition from the source that Con said was OK that included natural genetic modification and it too had sourcing that pro brought forth showing the same thing. By debater performance, I have to accept Pro's sources as perfectly reasonable and particularly of common usage (wikipedia) because Con accepts them too. I cannot ignore that Pro's source says "in nature" in the definition of Genetically modified organisms, no matter how weird Con tries to tell me it is. Con already convinced me that the source was not weird, and it directly supported Pro's case. After reading this debate, I sit here convinced that all organisms are genetically modified and that I must eat them for macros. Con's appeals did not sway my duty as a voter to follow rules and accepted definitions.

-->
@DebateVoter

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DebateVoter // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The moderator team is investigating this account.
************************************************************************