CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
With global populations continuing to rise exponentially, even though it would be technically possible to solve world hunger without the aid of GM currently, I fail to see how regular crop turnover and breeding will keep up with increasing demand for food.
Saying GM foods are better because they are cheaper is like saying we should send tainted water with deadly toxins to Africans because it is cheaper than purified water.
You're fifteen years of age. You don't write theses, you write essays. By any chance were your sources anything like this, or this?
I'm not trying to belittle the potential dangers of GMOs, but I've looked and have very rarely stumbled upon what I would call a reputable source confirming their dangers.
Someone's age has nothing to do with their level of maturity. Take you for example, how old are you? And you're belittling someone for their age. I find that highly immature.
Also, age does not define someone's intelligence either. Apollo is one of the most advanced fifteen year old I've had the pleasure of ever speaking to. He is thorough with his arguments, backs them up well, and he can still joke around when it's okay to.
I know this had nothing to do with the debate, but I can't stand when someone judges someone else based on something as ridiculous as age.
Someone's age has nothing to do with their level of maturity.
Agreed, for the most part.
Take you for example, how old are you?
Immaterial.
And you're belittling someone for their age.
I'm belittling an entire generation for their age.
Also, age does not define someone's intelligence either.
I can agree with that; I know few adults who've far less intelligence than their children, but their children's intelligence is so low that I've little doubt some form of mental incapacity must run in their family.
Apollo is one of the most advanced fifteen year old I've had the pleasure of ever speaking to.
I agree that he is far from stupid. I never meant to imply that he is stupid. Some of the smartest people I know have been stooped by such sources as I gave in the links in the above argument.
I know this had nothing to do with the debate, but I can't stand when someone judges someone else based on something as ridiculous as age.
You have misinterpreted the spirit behind my argument.
I'm not going to argue your point of view, simply because I'm pretty sure I won't change it, but you do realise that that doesn't answer the question, right?
No question was asked. However, if the title were to be reworked into a question, I imagine it would look something like this: "Are GM Foods Essential in the Fight Against World Hunger?" To which I would reply, "No, GM foods are not essential in the fight against world hunger because such a fight is not ours. If the world cannot provide for us, we are to die. Survival of the Fittest. We ought not be tampering with Darwinism."
As couldn't you argue that if Darwinism is survival of the fittest, as the fittest race, humans should do what they can to survive as a group, not only as individuals?
A Chain is made up of a group of individuals, just as society is made up of a group of individuals. If one individual is incapable of securing his own livelihood, even if to do so he must succumb to his "animal instincts" and catch fish with his own hands, then what business have I to do so for him?
You could use the same logic and say that Britain shouldn't have helped the first US settlers from Europe, but if they hadn't, it's not unlikely that they'd have died, and the worlds largest economy wouldn't have ever been. People don't always have to stay an their current levels, they can improve. It's true that in the short run, they will not help support us, but in the long run, I disagree.
You could use the same logic and say that Britain shouldn't have helped the first US settlers from Europe
I take it you don't know anything about American history. The settlers of New England were - surprise surprise - English. The Dutch colonized New York; the French colonized Louisiana, the Portuguese colonized Brazil, and the Spanish colonized most of the rest of South America, Central America, Mexico, and the area around Texas and New Mexico. The British didn't help the French and the Spanish settlers, for Britain had long been in dispute with them (the English king thought that he was also the rightful French king, which led to countless wars throughout the periods from about 1100 to 1750, whereas the Spanish and the English had a history of distrust for each other, culminating in the Spanish Armada of the late 16th century during the reign of Elizabeth I).
but if they hadn't, it's not unlikely that they'd have died
Weren't the natives rather helpful? Until, of course, White Man began to kill them.
and the worlds largest economy wouldn't have ever been.
You have much to learn. You ought not try to make predictions of what would have been had something else never come to pass.
People don't always have to stay an their current levels
I never said that they need remain at their current level in society.
they can improve
Precisely! They can improve. They themselves can work to make their own lives better.
It's true that in the short run, they will not help support us
I'm not an expert, but I've spent three years in an American school, I wouldn't say I know nothing. And when I said US settlers, I mean Europeans, coming from Europe, and settling in what is currently the US.
For sure, there was a strong English population in New York, it's named after York (in England) after all. And I was talking about the US, not the Americas as a whole.
And also, after the British stopped helping, wasn't it because they were beaten in the war, which America only stopped because it had French backing? Without European interference as a whole, it's impossible to say that North America would be where it is now (as in the settlers still went, but the governments left them alone).
How can you make any comparison of past or future events if not by making predictions? All predictions are uncertain, you can never know, but that doesn't mean it still holds value to do it.
I'll go back to the original question to show what I mean. There are starving people in the Horn of Africa right now. If they starve, and die, then we gain nothing. But if the West support them, and the famine ends, and the countries start to do well, then it's not unlikely that they will be our allies in the future. This would obviously take a long time, but that's what I'm trying to say. They don't necessarily need to improve by themselves.
They can only work to make their own lives better if we help them first though. Like that good example of instead of giving a starving man a fish, give him a rod. If we give them the ability to help themselves, at little cost to ourselves, then they will grow and pay us back. They are helping themselves, but it does need foreign interference in the first place. Is that acceptable to you, or are you against any form of interference?
I'm not an expert, but I've spent three years in an American school, I wouldn't say I know nothing. And when I said US settlers, I mean Europeans, coming from Europe, and settling in what is currently the US.
It wasn't meant so much as an insult directed at you as an insult at the entire atmosphere of education to be found in schools today.
For sure, there was a strong English population in New York, it's named after York (in England) after all.
The English, though present in some forms, were not of the prevailing nationality. The Dutch - most remarkably the van Rensselaer family - were the prominent members of Albany, the capital of New York State, and other areas, such as Schenectady.
And I was talking about the US, not the Americas as a whole.
I figured as much, but there were four nationalities prevalent in America during the colonial days (five if you include Russia in Alaska) and I always like to jump at the chance of teaching somebody something.
And also, after the British stopped helping, wasn't it because they were beaten in the war, which America only stopped because it had French backing?
This is a common misconception.
Britain and France fought a war over the colonies (the French and Indian War), which ultimately gave the colonists protection from both the natives and the French, as well as British control over previously French Canada. The British wanted to tax the colonists, having benefited the most by their ensured safety, and the colonists weren't too pleased by that. They had plenty of other grievances but, considering that they were probably the freest people in the world at the time kind of makes those matters moot.
So, the American colonists decided to revolt. Some didn't like the idea of going against the king and went to Canada where they have become known as United Empire Loyalists, but the majority remained in the colonies and fought. The war went on for a few years before Americans claimed victory and set up their own country. It wasn't for about another decade, though, that Washington was elected. Between independence and Washington came the Continental Congress, but I think you've got the gist and, frankly, I've gotten pretty far off topic.
There are starving people in the Horn of Africa right now. If they starve, and die, then we gain nothing.
There are quite possibly starving people living within five miles of your house. If they starve and die, we gain nothing. However, if they starve and die, whatever we lose will become entirely up for conjecture. We do not know what the world would have been like had Hitler starved to death - or maybe a merciful ruler would have been elected instead of him had he not starved to death as a child. However, the fact remains that, free from this complicated system we have developed, in the most basic form of human life and existence, the strongest survive because only the strongest overcome the greatest of adversities.
But if the West support them, and the famine ends, and the countries start to do well, then it's not unlikely that they will be our allies in the future.
There was a time when most of Africa was under European domination. Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Congo. We gave them freedom, now they go to war with us.
They can only work to make their own lives better if we help them first though.
As you misquote in the next sentence, give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.* Don't give them food, for then they shall become complacent and wait for more deliveries; instead, if you must do anything, teach them to fend for themselves. The greatest gift one can give is independence, and self-sufficiency breeds independence.
If we give them the ability to help themselves, at little cost to ourselves, then they will grow and pay us back.
I'll accept that. Just from a 5 minute google search when I was learning it, you can already tell how much information is left out about US settlers, hardly surprising in a US textbook, but still, I agree.
Actually there most probably aren't, I live in Qatar, highest or 2nd highest GDP per capita in the world. But yes, I accept your point, I used to live in Mumbai too, there were thousands of slums right next to my house.
So just because they live in an area with a higher chance of famine and drought, it makes them weaker? I'd disagree to that.
And you make it sound like giving them freedom was a luxury. European domination was not OK, it was invasions. As a European, I understand completely why they are 'at war' with us. If we had never taken them over, I think they'd be in a better position to feed themselves right now, wouldn't you?
But give them GM agriculture, and they can grow food, even in the harsh African sun. At least that's what I assume is the plan.
Of course it is, but it's also selfish. I'd defend helping them even from a selfless perspective, simply to prevent death. I was simply trying to appeal to something you'd agree with.
i don't think they're essential, plus i think we need more research into the side effects after eating these foods do to a person. Plus if we stopped growing any tobacco, and replaced that land with food, we would be able to feed billions of more people than we do now(people would have to stop smoking tobacco though, which will probrably never happen). I also read that they're gonna build huge greenhouses in the dessert to pretty much be huge farm greenhouses.
