Debate for the side of the Argument you disagree with.

[Colt45thrwngstar]

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]

I don't know where I stand, sadly.

[Cupcake]

No. That is most definitely wrong. The pesticides and growth hormones in the genetic plants are better. Because they just are.

[Colt45thrwngstar]

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]

Organic food is better, the risks for geneticaly enhanced food aren't worth it.

[TheViolletteHeart]

Originally Posted by Colt45thrwngstar

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]

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]

Plants?

My diet is 100% meat.

[Colt45thrwngstar]

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]

Ok, I'll expand it to cover meet too. We have '100% organic Chicken, and Genetically enhanced Chicken' as well.

[Lou!e]

Originally Posted by Gamabunta

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]

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]

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]

i dont give a crap as long as it taste good

[The Demon Zabuza]

Originally Posted by Colt45thrwngstar

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]

Topic allready expanded to include animals.

[Sabra Kusabana]

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]

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Sabra Kusabana

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]

Originally Posted by Colt45thrwngstar

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]

Originally Posted by shkin

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.