LMS Debate: gabi vs CeLLaR-DooR: should famine struck areas be fed genetically modified foods

[CapitalB]

u tell me that shit in my dm's! lmmfao

 

[2stepz_ahead]

sorry.....yall....

im internationally known like freddie tiffany

im an expat now......so thats why i cant take sides....

an american with an american wife and dominican girlfreind and im living in switzerland.....

i dont know who i am....but i got some fine women...

just jokes

anything stated in this post is strictly for entertainment purposes

 

[D. Morgan]

I'll say this regarding the debate topic

Nobody likes a choosy beggar!!!

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

You're right in your sayin' that the long term effects are not yet known to be negligible. Damn right. But that's potential pain and starvation is killin' many millions of people right now.

Agriculture hasn't been a staple of civilisation for a very long time. Even removin' the argument for the poor, it's only a matter of time before most of the food we eat is entirely GM. How much of the food you consume is 'natural'?

We allow science into our bodies without even thinkin' in many other instances. Pills, booze, bottled water. If its good enough for us, who can afford to eat more natural foods, why shouldn't GM foods be good enough for the poor who can't?

Brothers and sisters, we would be remiss if we did not define what a GMO is. A genetically modified organism is one that has had its DNA altered by having the DNA of another organism implanted into it. The foreign DNA can come from plants, animals or even viruses and bacteria.

Now again, being able to make a bunch of crops to feed people sounds good doesn't it? But there is more to the story. GMOs are actually banned in over 20 countries and heavily restricted in more than that, including my opponent's home country of the UK. In my home country of the U.S., GMOs are not banned, however, there is an ongoing fight to label such foods.

My brothers and sisters, do you not see the irony in my opponent telling you that GMOs are the way to go for the poor and hungry with no choice, when the majority of first world countries would choose NOT to consume them?

Yes, "we allow science into our bodies"...but the caveat here is the consent. If I drink alcohol or take prescription drugs, I'm doing so by choice. By the power vested in me by my American forefathers, I have the FREEDOM to allow what I want into my body.

We would not be giving these people that same choice. What we would be doing is taking advantage of a minority of people and using them as test subjects in our science experiments. If feeding them GMOs ends up causing them long term harm, then it'll be "oh well we tried...they're disadvantaged so who cares, right? We made that sacrifice for science and we'll do better next time."

Now where have I heard this logic before? Oh yes......in the Tuskegee experiments.

'Heavily restricted' is an almost egregious over simplification of the rules we have on GMOs in the UK. Near enough every animal is fed entirely GMOs, so they are next to impossible to avoid unless you buy organic. Most people can't afford to do so, so most UK residents are already eatin' GMOs everyday. The difference between eatin' a GMO and eatin' an animal fed entirely GMOs is emotional, not rational.

Once more, humans intake foreign bacteria on a regular basis. You can say you take prescription drugs by choice, but is it really a choice if you're sick? Is it a choice if the drugs are keepin' you alive? Is there really a difference between takin' a scientifically created cure to survive and eatin' a scientifically created food to survive? Again, the argument is visceral and not rational.

In what way is feedin' the famished foods we eat on a daily basis 'taking advantage' of the poor?

GMO foods can be more nutritious, more quickly developed and are much more resistant to disease than non GMOs. They are also more resistant to pests, so harmful pesticides are not an issue with them. They remain edible for longer than non GMOs and can be transported with a much lower risk of rottin' and require much less unnatural chemicals to keep them sanitary. They are also more immune to extreme weather, so those in countries with tumultuous conditions will also benefit

We can largely put an end to starvation and are choosin' not to because of unsubstantiated health risks and the concerns of wealthy countries who, while mostly eatin' GMOs themselves, are more concerned with the social implications than the millions sufferin'

 

[Young_Chitlin]

You're right in your sayin' that the long term effects are not yet known to be negligible. Damn right. But that's potential pain and starvation is killin' many millions of people right now.

Agriculture hasn't been a staple of civilisation for a very long time. Even removin' the argument for the poor, it's only a matter of time before most of the food we eat is entirely GM. How much of the food you consume is 'natural'?

We allow science into our bodies without even thinkin' in many other instances. Pills, booze, bottled water. If its good enough for us, who can afford to eat more natural foods, why shouldn't GM foods be good enough for the poor who can't?

Brothers and sisters, we would be remiss if we did not define what a GMO is. A genetically modified organism is one that has had its DNA altered by having the DNA of another organism implanted into it. The foreign DNA can come from plants, animals or even viruses and bacteria.

Now again, being able to make a bunch of crops to feed people sounds good doesn't it? But there is more to the story. GMOs are actually banned in over 20 countries and heavily restricted in more than that, including my opponent's home country of the UK. In my home country of the U.S., GMOs are not banned, however, there is an ongoing fight to label such foods.

My brothers and sisters, do you not see the irony in my opponent telling you that GMOs are the way to go for the poor and hungry with no choice, when the majority of first world countries would choose NOT to consume them?

Yes, "we allow science into our bodies"...but the caveat here is the consent. If I drink alcohol or take prescription drugs, I'm doing so by choice. By the power vested in me by my American forefathers, I have the FREEDOM to allow what I want into my body.

We would not be giving these people that same choice. What we would be doing is taking advantage of a minority of people and using them as test subjects in our science experiments. If feeding them GMOs ends up causing them long term harm, then it'll be "oh well we tried...they're disadvantaged so who cares, right? We made that sacrifice for science and we'll do better next time."

Now where have I heard this logic before? Oh yes......in the Tuskegee experiments.

'Heavily restricted' is an almost egregious over simplification of the rules we have on GMOs in the UK. Near enough every animals is fed entirely GMOs, so they are next to impossible to avoid unless you buy organic. Most people can't afford to do so, so most UK residents are already eatin' GMOs everyday. The difference between eatin' a GMO and eatin' an animal fed entirely GMOs is emotional, not rational.

Once more, humans intake foreign bacteria on a regular basis. You can say you take prescription drugs by choice, but is it really a choice if you're sick? Is it a choice if the drugs are keepin' you alive? Is there really a difference between takin' a scientifically created cure to survive and eatin' a scientifically created food to survive? Again, the argument is visceral and not rational.

In what way is feedin' the famished foods we eat on a daily basis 'taking advantage' of the poor?

GMO foods can be more nutritious, made quickly developed and are much more resistant to disease than non GMOs. They are also more resistant to pests, so harmful pesticides are not an issue with them. They remain edible for longer than non GMOs and can be transported with a much lower risk of rottin' and require much less unnatural chemicals to keep them sanitary. They are also more immune to extreme weather, so those in countries with tumultuous conditions will also benefit

We can largely put an end to starvation and are choosin' not to because of unsubstantiated health risks and the concerns of wealthy countries who, while mostly eatin' GMOs themselves, are more concerned with the social implications than the millions sufferin'

@atribecalledgabi pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

 

[CapitalB]

You're right in your sayin' that the long term effects are not yet known to be negligible. Damn right. But that's potential pain and starvation is killin' many millions of people right now.

Agriculture hasn't been a staple of civilisation for a very long time. Even removin' the argument for the poor, it's only a matter of time before most of the food we eat is entirely GM. How much of the food you consume is 'natural'?

We allow science into our bodies without even thinkin' in many other instances. Pills, booze, bottled water. If its good enough for us, who can afford to eat more natural foods, why shouldn't GM foods be good enough for the poor who can't?

Brothers and sisters, we would be remiss if we did not define what a GMO is. A genetically modified organism is one that has had its DNA altered by having the DNA of another organism implanted into it. The foreign DNA can come from plants, animals or even viruses and bacteria.

Now again, being able to make a bunch of crops to feed people sounds good doesn't it? But there is more to the story. GMOs are actually banned in over 20 countries and heavily restricted in more than that, including my opponent's home country of the UK. In my home country of the U.S., GMOs are not banned, however, there is an ongoing fight to label such foods.

My brothers and sisters, do you not see the irony in my opponent telling you that GMOs are the way to go for the poor and hungry with no choice, when the majority of first world countries would choose NOT to consume them?

Yes, "we allow science into our bodies"...but the caveat here is the consent. If I drink alcohol or take prescription drugs, I'm doing so by choice. By the power vested in me by my American forefathers, I have the FREEDOM to allow what I want into my body.

We would not be giving these people that same choice. What we would be doing is taking advantage of a minority of people and using them as test subjects in our science experiments. If feeding them GMOs ends up causing them long term harm, then it'll be "oh well we tried...they're disadvantaged so who cares, right? We made that sacrifice for science and we'll do better next time."

Now where have I heard this logic before? Oh yes......in the Tuskegee experiments.

'Heavily restricted' is an almost egregious over simplification of the rules we have on GMOs in the UK. Near enough every animals is fed entirely GMOs, so they are next to impossible to avoid unless you buy organic. Most people can't afford to do so, so most UK residents are already eatin' GMOs everyday. The difference between eatin' a GMO and eatin' an animal fed entirely GMOs is emotional, not rational.

Once more, humans intake foreign bacteria on a regular basis. You can say you take prescription drugs by choice, but is it really a choice if you're sick? Is it a choice if the drugs are keepin' you alive? Is there really a difference between takin' a scientifically created cure to survive and eatin' a scientifically created food to survive? Again, the argument is visceral and not rational.

In what way is feedin' the famished foods we eat on a daily basis 'taking advantage' of the poor?

GMO foods can be more nutritious, made quickly developed and are much more resistant to disease than non GMOs. They are also more resistant to pests, so harmful pesticides are not an issue with them. They remain edible for longer than non GMOs and can be transported with a much lower risk of rottin' and require much less unnatural chemicals to keep them sanitary. They are also more immune to extreme weather, so those in countries with tumultuous conditions will also benefit

We can largely put an end to starvation and are choosin' not to because of unsubstantiated health risks and the concerns of wealthy countries who, while mostly eatin' GMOs themselves, are more concerned with the social implications than the millions sufferin'

 

[HundredEyes]

You're right in your sayin' that the long term effects are not yet known to be negligible. Damn right. But that's potential pain and starvation is killin' many millions of people right now.

Agriculture hasn't been a staple of civilisation for a very long time. Even removin' the argument for the poor, it's only a matter of time before most of the food we eat is entirely GM. How much of the food you consume is 'natural'?

We allow science into our bodies without even thinkin' in many other instances. Pills, booze, bottled water. If its good enough for us, who can afford to eat more natural foods, why shouldn't GM foods be good enough for the poor who can't?

Brothers and sisters, we would be remiss if we did not define what a GMO is. A genetically modified organism is one that has had its DNA altered by having the DNA of another organism implanted into it. The foreign DNA can come from plants, animals or even viruses and bacteria.

Now again, being able to make a bunch of crops to feed people sounds good doesn't it? But there is more to the story. GMOs are actually banned in over 20 countries and heavily restricted in more than that, including my opponent's home country of the UK. In my home country of the U.S., GMOs are not banned, however, there is an ongoing fight to label such foods.

My brothers and sisters, do you not see the irony in my opponent telling you that GMOs are the way to go for the poor and hungry with no choice, when the majority of first world countries would choose NOT to consume them?

Yes, "we allow science into our bodies"...but the caveat here is the consent. If I drink alcohol or take prescription drugs, I'm doing so by choice. By the power vested in me by my American forefathers, I have the FREEDOM to allow what I want into my body.

We would not be giving these people that same choice. What we would be doing is taking advantage of a minority of people and using them as test subjects in our science experiments. If feeding them GMOs ends up causing them long term harm, then it'll be "oh well we tried...they're disadvantaged so who cares, right? We made that sacrifice for science and we'll do better next time."

Now where have I heard this logic before? Oh yes......in the Tuskegee experiments.

'Heavily restricted' is an almost egregious over simplification of the rules we have on GMOs in the UK. Near enough every animals is fed entirely GMOs, so they are next to impossible to avoid unless you buy organic. Most people can't afford to do so, so most UK residents are already eatin' GMOs everyday. The difference between eatin' a GMO and eatin' an animal fed entirely GMOs is emotional, not rational.

Once more, humans intake foreign bacteria on a regular basis. You can say you take prescription drugs by choice, but is it really a choice if you're sick? Is it a choice if the drugs are keepin' you alive? Is there really a difference between takin' a scientifically created cure to survive and eatin' a scientifically created food to survive? Again, the argument is visceral and not rational.

In what way is feedin' the famished foods we eat on a daily basis 'taking advantage' of the poor?

GMO foods can be more nutritious, made quickly developed and are much more resistant to disease than non GMOs. They are also more resistant to pests, so harmful pesticides are not an issue with them. They remain edible for longer than non GMOs and can be transported with a much lower risk of rottin' and require much less unnatural chemicals to keep them sanitary. They are also more immune to extreme weather, so those in countries with tumultuous conditions will also benefit

We can largely put an end to starvation and are choosin' not to because of unsubstantiated health risks and the concerns of wealthy countries who, while mostly eatin' GMOs themselves, are more concerned with the social implications than the millions sufferin'

@atribecalledgabi

 

[blacktux]

Great points from both sides so far.

Leaning on the "against" side atm.

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

Time up?

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Time up?

Hell nah we got 24 hrs to respond

 

[CeLLaR-DooR]

What I thought it was 24 hours total

 

[atribecalledgabi]

Actually @2stepz_ahead how we gonna handle thanksgiving? We get that day off? Cuz I don't plan on coming in this bitch tomorrow and cellar is a day ahead.

 

[Will Munny]

They already feed non poverty places gmo foods tho.

 

[CapitalB]

They already feed non poverty places gmo foods tho.

it aint a question of if they doin it or not..

its if ur okay wit it or not and why??!

now quiet and enjoy the show wigga!

 

[Will Munny]

They already feed non poverty places gmo foods tho.

it aint a question of if they doin it or not..

its if ur okay wit it or not and why??!

now quiet and enjoy the show wigga!

Well jeez it's just a silly thing to debate about. But Wigga!? You know I hate that!

 

[CapitalB]

They already feed non poverty places gmo foods tho.

it aint a question of if they doin it or not..

its if ur okay wit it or not and why??!

now quiet and enjoy the show wigga!

Well jeez it's just a silly thing to debate about. But Wigga!? You know I hate that!

 

[CapitalB]

<--- jus wanted the 100th post..

 

[mryounggun]

They already feed non poverty places gmo foods tho.

Stfu until after the debate ends.

 

[yellowtapesport]

Damn @atribecalledgabi got me in here feeling like I shoulda got my google on...lol

But real niggas know its respond on sight..#ROS

Get 'em gabs

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Actually @2stepz_ahead how we gonna handle thanksgiving? We get that day off? Cuz I don't plan on coming in this bitch tomorrow and cellar is a day ahead.

we gotta have turkey day off....holidays are the exception.... goes for Euro or UK or Canadian as well.