Beinglostats's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: Not in best interest of Public
6
Not in best interest of Public
4
In best interest of Public
"When a biotechnology patent involving an altered product of nature is issued, the patent holder is required to deposit a sample of the new invention into one of the 26 worldwide culture depositories. Most DNA-related patents are issued by the USPTO, the European Patent Office, or the Japanese Patent Office.
Currently over three million genome-related patent applications have been filed. U.S. patent applications are confidential until a patent is issued, so determining which sequences are the subject of patent applications is impossible. Those who use sequences from public databases today risk facing a future injunction if those sequences turn out to be patented by a private company on the basis of previously filed patent applications." (source: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml#3 ) (What is genetic engineering? http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/WhatisGE.html )
I don't expect anyone to be a professional in the fields of Patent Law; Biotechnology; or Genetics, but I did want to present something that should be of concern to the General Public. This is the patenting of gene sequences and manipulated gene variations by biotech companies. (let me add that much of the evidence, sound scientific inquiry and methodology, points to concern-much beyond concern impacting human health, the environmental impact, and biodiversity of different species-included in this is extinction due to herbicide use.
What are the consequences of allowing the right to patent "nature"?
What are the consequences of using bacteria as an agent to create these modifications?
Should we allow the right to patent genetic modified foods without proper testing? (many foods allowed for human consumption in Europe and the US have been approved without any sound science)
What would constitute as proper testing? Who would be responsible for this? Where could funding come from?
When science is used to prove the benefit to society, but is highly funded by biotech companies should these studies be considered? ( http://www.sgr.org.uk/SciencePolicy/SGR_corp_science_full.pdf )
What do you believe could be the benefits of genetic patenting?
Benefits of genetic engineering?
I have many more questions and would love to go more into issues of ethics, the science behind genetic engineering, and the politics behind the biotech movement.
Tied Positions: Streaming white noise vs. tinnitus
1
Semi-Classical Mood Music
very op-ed question. Whether it's a genre, a band, song, or specific style let it out. What helps you think?
Winning Position: I rather enjoy taking part
30
I rather enjoy taking part
28
I would rather hang myself
I've noticed that most of the recent debates, and most, are just plain stupid. (to put it simply)
Am I wrong to make this assumption? I don't know. You let me know.
What kind of debate do you enjoy? One of intellect or one of simplicity?
Winning Position: coal
2
clean coal greenwashing
Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources.[1] It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing. The term green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment. link
I'm curious to see how much the CD community knows about Greenwashing and do you still buy from companies that do. How does Green Washing negatively effect the economy? The environment? Consumers Trust? etc.
Do you believe that this is occuring in this most recent green initiative? Have you noticed it in the government?
If you are interested in finding out some more information, feel free to read this. It's titled the 6 sins of Greenwashing.
Winning Position: Need more UI
I just wanted to take the time to see how this issue is affecting this Community of Debaters. It hits home for me. In the past year my entire family, including myself, have become unemployed. Some have found jobs, some have not. These include family members with High School diploma's, Associates Degrees, BA's, Masters,and other qualifications.
Here are just a few examples of questions; Have you recently become unemployed? If so, how do you feel about it? Do you know anyone who has? Are you fearful of losing your current job? How long have you been unemployed? What do you do with your time? Is unemployment insurance enough to pay the bills? If not, what are you doing to pay them? What are the reactions of friends and families? Do you feel any sort of hostility towards you from others that are employed? Do you feel hostility towards those that are unemployed? Is the job market that bad? What is your states unemployment rate? What are you doing to keep up spirits? Does the unemployment situation have any effect on your spending habits?
I would like this to be an inquiry into the phenomenon that is becoming more prevelent as the economy continues to tussle.
Winning Position: Wow
My friend sent me this earlier today. IRS tax topic 357, which is pretty clear in its title.
Thoughts, feelings, and reflections are welcome.
I'm just curious as to how much this is actually used. (Obviously enough to have it be a topic)
Winning Position: poe's law
This is about the funiest or scariest thing I've seen on the internet. What are your thoughts? Check out the website:
Winning Position: No
From the article: "Perhaps no single statement about the Food and Drug Administration is more revealing than the eye opening one attributed to former FDA Commissioner Dr Herbert Ley: "The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day." Dr. Ley has been noted as the last FDA Commissioner who made an attempt to stand up to the pressure and influence of the big drug companies.Most people labor under the misconception that the sole purpose of the FDA is to serve as a watchdog for the public and protect them against bad drugs. Two recent polls indicated that while 82% of the public surveyed said that they trust the FDA to keep our drugs safe, 2/3 of the FDA's own scientists said that they didn't."
Great video about how the FDA has failed us, the consumer.
I would also like to add another question. With the ongoing pressures and the constant failing of the Western medical system, do you trust your physician to heal?
Please answer that question after you read the entire article I have linked above. The video is for your viewing pleasure. Also, feel free to pose your own lines of questions for debate.
As a side note, I would love to hear reactions before and after watching it but feel free to express yourself to the fullest. Here are some sample questions: Do you think it's legit? Does it concern you? Will you remain "business as usual" or make a change in your life? What alternative do we have? What regulations could be put into place that get rid of the pressure on FDA scientists? etc. etc.
Winning Position: Small Farm/Organics is future
7
Small Farm/Organics is future
1
GM and Big Ag is the future
I've been doing a lot of research on ag policy and time after time I see there is so much that needs to be done. Our lack of control over policy in the agriculture sector should leave many of you worried. USDA and FDA are two of the main government instiutions in control of regulation. Do a little research and see what you think. (I'm pro small Farm/Organics so know that this explanation and it's links are going to be biased in those regards) Most importantly the appointment of Vilsack to the head of agriculture is concerning. (He has many ties to a very questionable company: Monsanto) The main worry of many following the organic/sustainability movement and pro-rural/small farms is that Vilsack is pro Genetic modified crops and Large corporate ag business.
The point of this debate is to education the createdebate demographic on issues that relate to food supply and food from an agricultural perspective. There are two very obvious sides in the national debate on agriculture. (listed above are the parties concerned )
I started up a little blog about this issue with many links. Feel free to get the info there.
Winning Position: I'm for it
Definitions of network neutrality
At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[7] Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality:
Absolute non-discrimination Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[2] According to Imprint Magazine, University of Michigan Law School professor Susan Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations."[8] Limited discrimination without QoS tiering United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would allow quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[9] Limited discrimination and tiering This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee