CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
8
Yes, we should use less. No, we should use more.
Debate Score:16
Arguments:15
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, we should use less. (7)
 
 No, we should use more. (8)

Debate Creator

MKIced(2511) pic



We are overdependent on corn.

Corn is one of the most produced crops in America (we are the world's top producer).  It is also one of the most widely used crops.  We don't always harvest corn for direct consumption, though.  More often, it is converted into other forms and sold to consumers in a variety of items such as:

adhesives, antibiotics, asbestos insulation, batteries, car wheels, processed foods (in various forms, the most famous being high fructose corn syrup), crayons, explosives, fuel, livestock feed, paper products, rugs, toothpaste, and whiskey, among many many others

On top of our heavy use of corn products, companies like Monsanto have been genetically modifying corn seeds for years now, so that farmers can use lots of pesticides on their corn fields.  And although many experts say GMOs are safe for the environment and for the body, the truth is that it's mankind altering the genetic code of a corn seed and it's very possible this could adversely affect the plant.  

 

So now that we know we have so many genetically modified corn products, do you think we should scale back and try to vary our crop output or continue in the current practice and exploit corn even more?

Yes, we should use less.

Side Score: 8
VS.

No, we should use more.

Side Score: 8
2 points

First off, I don't trust GMOs because they aren't natural. I have no idea how much affecting the DNA makeup of a seed could potential disrupt cellular growth or function. Also, shouldn't we be worried that messing with the DNA might accidentally disrupt a different part of the corn and make it much more susceptible to cold weather, pesticides, or something else?

Second, if we ever had a corn problem, we'd be completely screwed. Yes, there are other countries that produce corn, but none of them produce corn nearly as much as we do. So if there happened to be an abnormally cold or hot or wet or dry year, the corn might not develop and we wouldn't have as much fuel, food, or other necessities.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to voice my opinion on Monsanto and other companies that produce GMO seeds. They have patents on these seeds, which I believe is wrong. I don't think any person or company should have the power to put a patent on life because it can't be 100% controlled. A perfect example happens all the time: two farmers plant corn right next to each other. Mr Green uses his own corn seed because he wants to grow organically. Mr Brown used Monsanto seeds because he wants to use pesticides. One day, a big storm rolls through their town. Some of Mr Brown's corn seeds on his field blow into Mr Green's field and the seeds begin to grow. At the end of the season, Mr Green harvests his corn and gets some of his own seeds back. Eventually, these GMOs might become a substantial portion of his crop, but he didn't buy any. In comes Monsanto with lawyers. They sue farmers for stealing product! And the majority of the time, the farmer settles because he can't afford legal fees. How is this justified?

Side: Yes, we should use less.
1 point

I PERSONALY WOULD ENJOY PUNCHING PAUL NEWMAN AND ORVIL REDINBAKER RIGHT IN THE FACE .............I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KICK BON JOVI IN THE BALLS , BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF EEGS IN CHINA . BUT NOW THAT WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT HOW BOUT THAT EEG RECALL?

Side: Yes, we should use less.

Appears that someone may have watched Food, Inc, the documentary.

The source of the problem begins at government, which is what the film detracts from. Only the government makes laws, so there are a plethora of agriculture laws and regulations that benefit big business such as Monsanto.

For instance, government subsidizes farmers to over plant corn, so that there is an oversupply of corn, which artificially lowers the price of corn, so all of those products are made a lower price, which is fine.

But, the government now wants additional taxes on fast food and soda, which are directly byproducts of the corn used to produce these foods.

So, the government benefits from double taxation to fund their pet projects, and big business benefits from the overinflated supply of the market. Basically, more product bought at a lower cost at the taxpayers expense.

Therefore, it artificially raises the price of these products to the level probably of which if the market would have be left alone, the real price of those products would have been sold in a free market, and when products are sold at real free market price, consumers willingness to pay declines along with the inelasticity of demand, which means the soda becomes more elastic.

Side: No, we should use more.
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

You'd better thank God or whoever else is you worship for subsidies. Without them the cost of the food you eat would be considerably higher. I suggest you think before you write.

I would get into the whole farming thing with you, but I'm sure your brain could not even begin to comprehend anything I write.

Side: Yes, we should use less.

Well me being a Brit (Scot to emphasize it) i will look at this in two ways America is too Dependant on corn, and Britain relies too much on corn,

So America is too dependent on corn because if by "dependent" you mean that without it that the world would come to a standstill. If corn suddenly disappeared

from the earth then many cereals would not be able to be made such as lucky charms (i hope i did my research right) and other great cereals so in that sense then we are definitely to dependent on corn. Also in Britain we also have breakfast cereals (surprise,surprise) one of our most popular brands is Kellogg's coco pops. without corn there would be no breakfast cereals and dieting people would lose precious sources of nutrition whilst staying low on calories so in the same sense both our countries are relying too much on corn.

Side: Yes, we should use less.
1 point

Cheap,abundant,no better alternative, corn and oil....drill baby drill.....plant baby plant.

Side: No, we should use more.
MKIced(2511) Disputed
1 point

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean we should rely on it. That's why there are plenty of scientists working on alternate fuels, making hybrid cars and solar car prototypes, because we may have oil now, but not forever. The same should go for corn. It's nice to use it now, but what do we do if the corn doesn't grow one year because its DNA has unexpectedly degraded or because we have a year of extreme natural disasters? We really should never rely on any one resource so heavily.

Side: Yes, we should use less.
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

I have no problem with you not relying on corn or oil,it is your freedom to do so. My only problem is those who don't want to rely on it trying to legislate me to not rely on it or to finance another more expensive product. I enjoy cheap stuff. If something is in abundance and I want to use it and use alot of it,why should I not be allowed. We actually are using more corn in fuel so in reality the same amount of scientists are looking for MORE uses of corn. If ethanol would take hold we will be more reliant on corn.

The market will determine the next fuel not some bureaucrat.If and when oil and corn are no longer abundant and cheap,the next product in line in abundance and price will takes it's place. It will not be something that the masses are told will save the world, it will be the cheapest and most abundant.Right now that just happens to be corn and oil.

Side: No, we should use more.

Using more homegrown products stimulates our economy. Not China's, but ours!

Side: No, we should use more.

I like corn because it is a good veggie to be served at any meal.

Side: No, we should use more.