PDA

View Full Version : Debate for the side of the Argument you disagree with.


Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 06:54 PM
Here's a little excercise for everyone. I want you to read the following prompt, decide where your opinions lay, and then debate the opposite side.

The topic:

Organically grown foods and plants are better for us and better for the environment, than Genetically enhanced Foods and Plants.

Determine where your opinion lies, then debate the opposite of your opinion.

TheViolletteHeart
08-16-2009, 06:56 PM
I don't know where I stand, sadly.

Cupcake
08-16-2009, 06:57 PM
No. That is most definitely wrong. The pesticides and growth hormones in the genetic plants are better. Because they just are.

Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 07:00 PM
VioletHeart, if you don't know where you stand, do a little research.

Apa, focus on the 'environmental' side of the debate, and support your statements.

Lou!e
08-16-2009, 07:01 PM
Organic food is better, the risks for geneticaly enhanced food aren't worth it.

TheViolletteHeart
08-16-2009, 07:02 PM
ViolletteHeart, if you don't know where you stand, do a little research.

Research will do me little good. I've learned plenty about the topic, but I really can't decide which side is right.

Oh, and I hope you don't mind me correcting the selling error.

Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 07:14 PM
Don't mind you correcting my spelling at all, s'long as you don't use it to invalidate anything I say. *grins*

When posting in this topic, don't just make a statement, backup your statements.

Saying that 'Its better for X' is invalid, unless you can provide a -reason- for it to be.

Gamabunta
08-16-2009, 07:15 PM
Plants? :|

My diet is 100% meat.

Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 07:18 PM
And Viollette, if you can't pick a side you agree with, for the purposes of this topic, just pick a side via flip of the coin, and go! *grins* Do it. Share with us!

Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 07:19 PM
Ok, I'll expand it to cover meet too. We have '100% organic Chicken, and Genetically enhanced Chicken' as well.

Lou!e
08-16-2009, 07:20 PM
Plants? :|

My diet is 100% meat.

That isn't good, in your pic it doesn't look like that. You will die young with tha diet.

TheViolletteHeart
08-16-2009, 07:23 PM
Okay...Flipping a coin...Alright!

If we didn't have genetically modified plants, we wouldn't be able to, say, get fresh, locally-grown tomatoes in winter. All the plants would freeze and die. And, modifications make crops less vulnerable for diseases. Also, they could probably modify the genes to make produce more healthy.

Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 07:29 PM
But the chemicals used to genetically modify plants and animals are harmfull to the environment, and are even capable of causing unexpected genitic mutations. Genetic pesticideds are a bad idea because they can become too effective, and ruin an eco system, so can the plants themselves, or genetically enhanced animals.

The 1st Hokage
08-16-2009, 08:56 PM
i dont give a crap as long as it taste good

The Demon Zabuza
08-16-2009, 08:57 PM
But the chemicals used to genetically modify plants and animals are harmfull to the environment, and are even capable of causing unexpected genitic mutations. Genetic pesticideds are a bad idea because they can become too effective, and ruin an eco system, so can the plants themselves, or genetically enhanced animals.

Look at DDT. That was a pesticide that destroyed eco-systems.

Also, you might want to include animals in this as well, as they can also be intensively farmed.

Colt45thrwngstar
08-16-2009, 09:31 PM
Topic allready expanded to include animals.

Sabra Kusabana
08-17-2009, 01:10 AM
Okay, you are ganna make this difficult for me because I do not fully support or go against either, and I have no coin at hand to flip...

My veiw is that I'm okay with altering the plant, but I dislike the use of most pesticides. In essence I support growing mutations, but prefer organic processes in the field. I understand the need for different plants, and the reason for them to be altered. I also understand the damage so many chemicals cause to the eco-system.

There's little space for a happy medium. I can't say I don't approve of mutant plants or other food sources because I know right now there are countries being sustained because of mutated foods like rice and corn. Specially breed and altered plants are a large part of the world's food sourses. To take them out of the field for their natural cousins would cause mass starvation in some areas.

Organic planting and growing has proven to be healthier, but sometimes alot of crops are lost to pest because of it. Often this results in fighting bugs with more bugs that are their natural enemies. This can result in alot of unpredictable variables, making growing a successful crop difficult. Still the benefits of the trouble are worth it.

I believe in radiation treatments for foods to so that they keep longer. What's it matter if you grow enough food and it spoils before it gets to those that need it to eat? Radiation usually does not damage a product, but kills the bacteria in it in a similar way to pasteriation. The two are basically the same, I support both processes.

Saying one way or the other is better is not always looking at the whole problem. I disagree with most chemical pesticides because of side effects, and I know that if we reverted to 'purely natural' food sources we would have global food issues. Most of what is not organic has simply been breed for a trait, not always mutated; still, most group the two together.

I find it difficult to argue the other point of veiw on this topic, because there's a certain amount of support and dislike of both, so I can't fulfill what you asked for in the title, sorry. I can say that calling one wrong for one reason can be turned on the other just as easily, because they are similar in many ways, and so difficult to discuss.

I don't approve of breeding for none food reasons like we do with dogs and such, but for the purpose of supplying a need I can accept it. I'm okay with the development of medical drugs to fight illness, which is the same as the chemicals used on crops when you think about it. So I'm really at a crossroads. Both have excellent points, but both also fail to be perfect. That's my piece about the issue.

Shkin
08-17-2009, 01:36 AM
Okay, you are ganna make this difficult for me because I do not fully support or go against either, and I have no coin at hand to flip...

My veiw is that I'm okay with altering the plant, but I dislike the use of most pesticides. In essence I support growing mutations, but prefer organic processes in the field. I understand the need for different plants, and the reason for them to be altered. I also understand the damage so many chemicals cause to the eco-system.

There's little space for a happy medium. I can't say I don't approve of mutant plants or other food sources because I know right now there are countries being sustained because of mutated foods like rice and corn. Specially breed and altered plants are a large part of the world's food sourses. To take them out of the field for their natural cousins would cause mass starvation in some areas.

Organic planting and growing has proven to be healthier, but sometimes alot of crops are lost to pest because of it. Often this results in fighting bugs with more bugs that are their natural enemies. This can result in alot of unpredictable variables, making growing a successful crop difficult. Still the benefits of the trouble are worth it.

I believe in radiation treatments for foods to so that they keep longer. What's it matter if you grow enough food and it spoils before it gets to those that need it to eat? Radiation usually does not damage a product, but kills the bacteria in it in a similar way to pasteriation. The two are basically the same, I support both processes.

Saying one way or the other is better is not always looking at the whole problem. I disagree with most chemical pesticides because of side effects, and I know that if we reverted to 'purely natural' food sources we would have global food issues. Most of what is not organic has simply been breed for a trait, not always mutated; still, most group the two together.

I find it difficult to argue the other point of veiw on this topic, because there's a certain amount of support and dislike of both, so I can't fulfill what you asked for in the title, sorry. I can say that calling one wrong for one reason can be turned on the other just as easily, because they are similar in many ways, and so difficult to discuss.

I don't approve of breeding for none food reasons like we do with dogs and such, but for the purpose of supplying a need I can accept it. I'm okay with the development of medical drugs to fight illness, which is the same as the chemicals used on crops when you think about it. So I'm really at a crossroads. Both have excellent points, but both also fail to be perfect. That's my piece about the issue.


indeed you are one of my favorites in this forum. =D

i am not really sure that there is still organic "thing" in the market today. but for the sake of argument, i am still for organic for its claim on being healthier for us. but since the world now is so much "mutated" we also need "mutants" to live in it. =D

TheViolletteHeart
08-17-2009, 02:43 AM
Genetic pesticideds are a bad idea because they can become too effective, and ruin an eco system, so can the plants themselves, or genetically enhanced animals.

Is this proven by fact, or just a theory?

Adressing pesticides, you do know they have environmentally friendly pesticides, right? For example, you can spray a plant with soap and water to ward off pests.

Sabra Kusabana
08-17-2009, 02:44 AM
indeed you are one of my favorites in this forum. =D

i am not really sure that there is still organic "thing" in the market today. but for the sake of argument, i am still for organic for its claim on being healthier for us. but since the world now is so much "mutated" we also need "mutants" to live in it. =D

You're right, I don't think there still is organic in this market. Even the shops that market organic often get produce from plants breed for specific traits. It's the way things are.

And ty for the compliment. I try to make only valid arguements, and be entertaining while I do it.

Sabra Kusabana
08-17-2009, 02:46 AM
Is this proven by fact, or just a theory?

Adressing pesticides, you do know they have environmentally friendly pesticides, right? For example, you can spray a plant with soap and water to ward off pests.

True, you can do that. The problem is that usually only fights bacteria and some plant dieseases, not most pests. It also risks leaving residue that can cause side effects just as bad as any other pesticide can.

I'm all for natural pest control, it's just really hard to do.

TheViolletteHeart
08-17-2009, 02:47 AM
And ty for the compliment. I try to make only valid arguements, and be entertaining while I do it.

I try to make only valid arguments!

...But then I slip into things that aren't really valid, but do make people laugh...

Sabra Kusabana
08-17-2009, 02:50 AM
I try to make only valid arguments!

...But then I slip into things that aren't really valid, but do make people laugh...

*Hugs V.*

That's okay, you're funny, and doing your best.

Colt45thrwngstar
08-17-2009, 02:54 AM
When you create a plant, which has a gene that makes it produce its own 'pesticide' residue (we have done this, with some forms of Cotton, and other non-edibles) You run the risk of creating a plant that is 'too effective' If the plant were to spread wildly, the consequences could be dire.

Sabra Kusabana
08-17-2009, 03:00 AM
When you create a plant, which has a gene that makes it produce its own 'pesticide' residue (we have done this, with some forms of Cotton, and other non-edibles) You run the risk of creating a plant that is 'too effective' If the plant were to spread wildly, the consequences could be dire.

I cannot dispute this risk, but that is why I believe anything we create should be properly monitered and controlled to prevent such an event.

Now I'm remembering an episode of the Termors series... So much LOL.

ihazcetsup
08-17-2009, 05:00 AM
I supose from a cost/benefit perspective organic is generally safer, when you can find it legitimately. But lets be honest. The population isn't going down any time soon, unless corrective measures are taken :D. Organic growth systems do not have the high yields of genetically engineered plants. It may be less of a question of which is better and more a questions of which is feasible in the near future. Further, both carry risks. Organic growing systems are proven to be safer for the ecology of the region, the water table is not poisoned any more than it already is and there is less attrition of local animals and plants. It also means susceptibility to the loss of a complete crop to pests. This is what happens in Africa on a yearly basis. Locust swarms come in and wipe out the entire harvest.

I will claim that Genetically engineered agriculture despite the risks is the system that is the most likely to be proven necessary in the near future. "Get used to three eyed trout", I say.

EdFry
08-17-2009, 05:09 AM
URGH! Why did you HAVE to choose a debate which I have only a one sided argument set up for.

Ok from what I know from the shows that i watch I know that Organic Farming uses pesticide; just a more toxic and less effective version and that organic farming taking up more land and it would feed less people if we switched all farming to it.

My only real argument to support "Organic" farming is that with less taste, equal nutrients and no real money going to local farmers; I declare that paying too much for food may be acceptable in these tough times only if you have a high salary and feel the need to support your mega-farmer(owned by a large corporation).--This is my bad argument...

Here is one stolen from another Guy/Gal
Credit goes to"http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/172166/detail/"
User:White_Wolf
-- Chemical fertilizers and the modern way of agriculture destroys the soil to the point of it being nearly worthless and, to boot, these things destroy biodiversity and ARE hazardous to human health. Unsustainable.

-- GM food is dangerous for the environment and your health. Besides, the worst of the worst corporations push these gen techs, annihilating whole communities.

-- The scientific mainstream is often under almost complete control of these corporations, just like in the field of medicine. Actually, just about all of academia sucks.

-- Try eating real organic food some time. Not only does it taste better, which is scientifically proven by millions of gardeners around the world and many others, it usually doesn't contain chemical rubbish such as refined sugars (which is just about put into every 'ordinary' product, probably to mask the horrendous taste of those products and to cater to the lowest common denominator).

-- Go visit a real organic farm some day. For that matter, investigate permaculture. Yields are higher than the crappy modern agriculture. It's also sustainable. Ever heard of that? Geez, I wonder how those HUGE fields of dead soil will produce anything when the oil price goes way up. You wish you had some local farm.
Don't know if that was useful.

ihazcetsup
08-17-2009, 05:19 AM
URGH! Why did you HAVE to choose a debate which I have only a one sided argument set up for.

Ok from what I know from the shows that i watch I know that Organic Farming uses pesticide; just a more toxic and less effective version and that organic farming taking up more land and it would feed less people if we switched all farming to it.

My only real argument to support "Organic" farming is that with less taste, equal nutrients and no real money going to local farmers; I declare that paying too much for food may be acceptable in these tough times only if you have a high salary and feel the need to support your mega-farmer(owned by a large corporation).--This is my bad argument...

Here is one stolen from another Guy/Gal
Credit goes to"http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/172166/detail/"
User:White_Wolf
-- Chemical fertilizers and the modern way of agriculture destroys the soil to the point of it being nearly worthless and, to boot, these things destroy biodiversity and ARE hazardous to human health. Unsustainable.

-- GM food is dangerous for the environment and your health. Besides, the worst of the worst corporations push these gen techs, annihilating whole communities.

-- The scientific mainstream is often under almost complete control of these corporations, just like in the field of medicine. Actually, just about all of academia sucks.

-- Try eating real organic food some time. Not only does it taste better, which is scientifically proven by millions of gardeners around the world and many others, it usually doesn't contain chemical rubbish such as refined sugars (which is just about put into every 'ordinary' product, probably to mask the horrendous taste of those products and to cater to the lowest common denominator).

-- Go visit a real organic farm some day. For that matter, investigate permaculture. Yields are higher than the crappy modern agriculture. It's also sustainable. Ever heard of that? Geez, I wonder how those HUGE fields of dead soil will produce anything when the oil price goes way up. You wish you had some local farm.
Don't know if that was useful.


I think you may have the two confused.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_methods)

EdFry
08-17-2009, 05:25 AM
I think you may have the two confused.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming_methods)
Probably I debate as well as I play chess,

I love them both but I am more of a checkers guy and a follow the person that says a lot in there post guy.

ihazcetsup
08-17-2009, 05:33 AM
While it is true that non-organic farming methods do eventually render the soil agriculturally dead, I don't see that being taken into consideration until world wide famines start up and the populations start dropping.

CrimsonCatClan
08-17-2009, 08:31 PM
There was a study done recently, that stated that Organic was no better for a person than Non Organic. Sure there are growth hormones and pesticides used but the plants are also treated to be richer in vitamins than their Organic cousins. Eating strictly organic can cause malnutrition at later dates. I don't worry about the pesticides or hormones due to the large amout we inhale, drink, and absorb through our skin every day. So if my fruit and veggies taste better and look healthier because of Growth Hormones, then bring em on baby!