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

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