Genetically Modified Organisms Are Essential To Humans
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
===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
Counter vote-bomb.
Counter-vote bomb.
Con violate rules, full loss
Con broke 2 rules, auto loss.
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
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
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bSEfx6D8mA
Nice try shitbag.
Please, do the same investigation process for bifolkal and the other 2.
I meant nefarious plans. Reporting votes is OK.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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.
That's the plan, but he played dirty. This is a new tactic that I'm not accustomed to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s actually a great compromise. Thank you guys.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Ah, so it was DebateVoter copying from your RFD then in the RM // Alec debate. Is that the explanation?
haha, that was a cute noob-tell try.
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.
Yeah sorry man
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.
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?
Congrats, shame they couldnt do it for me vs alec.
For great justice!
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.
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.
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.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************