The opponent thinks that we think that the disadvantages of transgenic technology outweigh the advantages. First of all, taking genetically modified foods as an example, some researchers believe that artificially extracting and adding genes can not only achieve some human effects, but also increase the production of certain toxins, which will cause acute or chronic viruses and even cause cancer. At present, there are countless cases of various strange diseases, such as infertility and abortion. Immune decline, impotence and premature ejaculation, as well as cardiovascular diseases, can not help but make people tremble with fear, and the changes of some nutrients, trace substances and antioxidant factors in genetically modified food will reduce the nutritional value of food and cause the imbalance of nutritional structure. Secondly, transgenic has a great destructive effect on the environment. As far as transgenic crops are concerned, they can become weeds, which will lead to the generation of weeds and pathogens and endanger biodiversity. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are foreign objects with competitive advantages to the ecosystem, and their introduction will cause damage and incalculable losses to the whole system. Their strong competitiveness will lead to the reduction or even extinction of other organisms, and genetically modified organisms will also hybridize with other organisms. Will cause new traits, these new traits will be unfavorable to other organisms, and genetically modified organisms may have strong reproductive and anti-reversion capabilities, and will multiply in large numbers, resulting in the inability of other organisms to survive, and there are still many hazards that are unimaginable. Third, transgenic technology is extremely harmful to the development of life economy. After the introduction of genetically modified foods and crops, their superior market competitiveness will lead to a large number of farmers losing their jobs, leading to the closure of planting industry and related enterprises, making the traditional planting industry in jeopardy. We will regret it then, so we insist that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Question link
Two affirmative arguments: hello, moderator, please answer the questions in the three arguments. Hello, opponent. There are still many countries in the world that lack food. The use of genetically modified food can effectively increase grain output, thus alleviating population pressure and promoting harmonious development of the world. Do you think this is correct?
Three arguments against it: Can genetically modified food definitely alleviate the food pressure?
Two arguments: okay, stop. In addition, many areas are worried about food. If it is not genetically modified food, should they starve?
Objection 3: China provides economic aid to poor areas in Africa every year, so as humanitarian aid, we will not watch them starve to death.
Two arguments: okay, stop. China's Ministry of Agriculture has provided safety certificates for genetically modified crops to the United States, Argentina and Brazil. Does this prove that genetically modified foods in these countries are no longer harmful to us?
Three objections: that's not true. Now, there are news everywhere that genetic modification has caused great harm to human safety.
Two arguments: okay, stop. In any case, transgenic technology is a hot research topic. Did you give up research because of a little risk, that is, lost watermelon and picked up sesame seeds?
Three arguments against it: Do we study transgenic technology only to fight against foreign countries and harm mankind?
Just debating: of course not. At present, many experiments that attack transgenic technology are found to be caused by non-compliance with experimental regulations.
Three arguments against it: As you said, they didn't abide by the experimental regulations and made mistakes.
Argument: The last hot issue, the transformation and application scope of transgenic technology, has reduced the use of pesticides. Does this mean that people's safety can be guaranteed to some extent?
Three arguments against it: at present, there is no technology to show that transgenic technology can reduce the use of pesticides.
Objection to two arguments: Hello, Madam President, Judge, I choose the three arguments that I just raised. Does the other party think that transgenic technology can benefit mankind within the scope of human control? Please answer yes or no.
There are only three reasons: yes.
Counterparty: OK, then I want to ask about the transgenic technology, which can also be the genetic technology of artificially synthesizing DNA fragments. Then once the base sequence is arranged incorrectly, the function will change and even develop in the opposite direction. So, is this uncontrollable?
Theory 3: Transgenic technology can be changed directionally.
Counterargument: Well, my opponent, let me ask you another question. If the base sequence changes, resulting in the loss of function, and human beings can not stop it, resulting in the infinite reproduction of this pathogen, will it cause harm to human beings?
Three arguments: my opponent, there are also genetic mutations in nature. How can you ensure that the genetic mutation in nature must conform to your idea?
Objection: Well, my opponent, I'll ask you again, whether the chemical and biological weapons do more harm than good or the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Three arguments: Of course, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but this is only one kind of biotechnology.
Counterparty: Well, it's good that you admit that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Biological and chemical weapons, including super bacteria made of genetically modified bacteria, cause sudden human diseases. Then, doesn't this just show that transgenic technology is a technology that does more harm than good? We should stop developing this technology.
Three affirmative arguments: Just now, the other debater was incoherent. And just catching a biological weapon means that you only have one example to prove that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Counterargument: well, my opponent, is human beings omnipotent?
Three arguments: Of course not.
Counterparty: Since human beings are not omnipotent, the transgenic technology developed by human beings also has its defects. If humans can't make up for it, will it lead to some damage to the biosphere and biodiversity?
Three arguments: of course, transgenic technology can make up for it. How can you be sure there's no way to fix it? And as I said before, there are genetic mutations in nature, so how can you ensure that genetic mutations in nature will not bring harm?
Counterparty: Is the mutation in nature slow?
Three arguments: How do you know it must be slow?
Counterparty: Because the evolution of nature is slow, you admit this, right?
Three arguments: I don't admit it, I'm sorry.
Counterparty: This is a matter of biological common sense. If you are not good at biology, you can ask your biology teacher.
Three straight arguments: The opposing debater, please ask questions in this questioning session.
Moderator: There will be questions on both sides below.
Three positive arguments: the host is good, the teacher is good, and the classmates are good. I choose to ask questions for two negative arguments. First of all, I want to ask you, have you ever eaten colored pepper or sweet corn?
Counterargument: Sorry, no.
Three arguments: Your answer really disappoints me. Ok, second question, is cotton warm?
Counterparty: There are other functions.
Three arguments: Does cotton have the function of keeping warm?
Objection: Yes.
Three arguments: So, can genetically modified cotton keep warm?
Contrary: Genetically modified cotton can really keep warm.
Three arguments: OK, I understand. Next question, does hepatitis B vaccine help China people to prevent hepatitis B virus? Please answer yes or no.
Objection: Yes.
Three arguments: ok, then I want to ask, after using transgenic technology, is the price of hepatitis B vaccine lower than before?
Counterargument: I don't understand this.
Three arguments: Well, ok, so the next question, as I said just now, is that there will also be genetic mutations in nature, and people will change through transgenic technology in real life. What do you think of this?
Contrary: Human beings are not omnipotent, but the biological evolution, biological evolution and biological mutation in nature are all slow, and the disadvantages will be eliminated by nature. What human beings have developed may be uncontrollable and develop in an irreversible direction. Once it is harmful to human beings or the biosphere, there is no way to make up for it.
Three arguments: well, then the next question, does synthetic transgenic insulin help people cure diabetes?
Counterparty: Yes, I don't deny the advantages of transgenic technology, but I still insist that the disadvantages of transgenic technology outweigh the advantages.
Three arguments in favor: OK, thank you.
Moderator: Let's ask the opposing sides to put forward three arguments to ask questions.
Three arguments contend: a mentor and a friend. I choose to ask the pros and cons. Hello, I would like to ask, is China developing transgenic technology to ensure that China will not be controlled by foreign countries in the future? Please answer yes or no.
Two arguments: yes.
Three arguments against it: Then why should foreign countries study transgenic technology?
Two statements: in order to increase food production.
Three arguments against it: well, in order to increase food production, can't we feed the world without transgenic technology now?
Two arguments: yes.
Three reasons to object: So, now you say that we can feed the world without genetically modified food. Why develop genetically modified food?
Argument: Transgenic technology has many advantages.
Three arguments against it: You just said that we don't need to develop genetically modified organisms. Are you questioning our debate now?
Just now, the other party listed the advantages of genetic modification. I want to ask, there are super bacteria, super pests and super weeds in transgenic plants, all of which are caused by the mutation and evolution of organisms. I want to ask, how to solve these problems now?
Just like the second debate: in fact, these problems also existed when antibiotics first came out.
Three arguments against it: what about our future generations?
There are two statements: the disadvantages of transgenic basically began to appear after four generations.
Three arguments against it: Just now we argued about soybean oil, and now we all use soybean oil. However, after the emergence of genetically modified foods in the British market, residents' allergies increased by 50%, and the same situation occurred in Brazil. Why? Is this caused by genetically modified soybeans?
Argument: I'm not sure.
Three arguments against it: So where did these data come from?
Argument: Everyone has different allergens. How can you be sure it's caused by soybeans?
Contrary: Scientists have added a gene of soybean to corn, wheat and shellfish, and so has the gene of protein. So people who are allergic to soybeans will also be allergic to these things, which will have serious consequences. You must admit this. This is the end of my question.
Problem summary
Three arguments: will transgenic technology show results soon? Does transgenic technology really mean that everyone can see the effect in a minute or two after using it? Just a generalization. Secondly, these two arguments are consistent with us in many cases. Genetically modified cotton can really keep ordinary cotton warm, and genetically modified food can really solve the problem of food and clothing for people. May I take it that you have secretly agreed with us that there are pests and weeds? It has been said many times in biology books that transgenic technology can prevent some pests from eating food directly and hurting food. Did the other party directly participate in the biology debate without reading the biology book? There are also medical problems such as hepatitis B virus and insulin. The other debater denied our statement many times, but the other debater admitted that these drugs can effectively treat diseases, so to sum up, I insist that the advantages of transgenic technology outweigh the disadvantages.
Three opposing arguments: Hello, Madam President, judges! First of all, thank the other debater for his generous remarks. His eloquence and eloquence are really admirable. However, I still want to point out some of your mistakes. First of all, I didn't mention the word pesticide in my question and answer just now, so you simply distorted my speech. First, other debaters have repeatedly and unilaterally emphasized the benefits of genetic modification to human beings, but neglected that we are not only human beings, but also the whole biosphere. We don't deny that genetic modification has certain benefits, but its disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. Let's think about it from the perspective of heaven. You transfer DNA to a specific organism and create a new organism. But can you guarantee the direction of control? What are you doing if the creature you created is not good for human beings? It is good for human beings, how many things need to be wasted, and even how many innocent lives need to be hurt to do experiments! If all the creatures you create don't live long, what did you create them for? Even if you live for a long time, you can't confirm whether it endangers other lives. We need to be responsible for the biosphere now, so transgenic technology is obviously a state that fish and bear's paw can't have both. Second, the other side's inference jump, which deducts our views into transgenic technology, is completely malpractice and fallacy for us. I want to clarify that genetic modification is not the result of natural selection. No research results can prove that transgenic is risk-free. Third, the benefits of genetic modification are equal to the disadvantages of genetic modification. This is suspected of serious concept stealing. Not only that, does the other debater want to deny the fact that transgenic technology has disadvantages? As an independent economist and journalist, William Endor has worked in new york and Europe. His research covers a wide range of fields. In his book Food Crisis, he said that a few people were allowed to engage in a conspiracy that was not noticed by most people. They use genetically modified engineering as a research method to control large-scale crops such as soybeans and rice and important poultry such as chickens and cattle. He also said that there is no evidence that genetically modified seeds and their supporting pesticides can increase production, and planting genetically modified crops will not reduce the use of pesticides. In fact, after planting transgenic crops for a period of time, the use of herbicides will not decrease, but will increase. Therefore, in our view, the disadvantages of transgenic technology outweigh the advantages. Thank you all
Free debate
Argument: The experimental problem mentioned by another debater actually has many loopholes, because it has not been proved to be genetically modified, and the dosage is different in each region. You can't explain China with American data.
The other side of the argument: another debater asks you a question. Do you know that chicken and human genes were transferred into the pork we ate a few years ago, but pork is taboo in many places and human flesh is not allowed. Is this unethical?
Three arguments: Of course, I don't think this is against ethics. First of all, the transfer of these genes is definitely beneficial, so people will try to do so. It can be seen that this is to increase the nutritional function of pigs and pork. Therefore, I doubt the value of the debate itself. Secondly, just now the other debater said that the word pesticide was not mentioned. I summed up all the other debaters. Just now, the other side argued that the word pesticide was in hand. Secondly, the other party mentioned the perspective of heaven three times. We are talking about biology, not science. Are we still talking about religious God? And gene mutation must do more harm than good? I doubt the other side's statement. Secondly, the other party mentioned the word "natural selection". So the natural selection package doesn't include genetic mutations? However, genes also have the function of self-repair, so why can't we say that transgenic technology can't achieve the same effect, and there is risk in transgenic technology, so there is no risk in natural gene mutation? Should people do nothing when they are in danger? Is this feasible? I doubt it. Secondly, the defense friend of the other side can't tell us some loopholes of the defense friend, which means that your materials are prepared in advance. In other words, there are no loopholes in what we are talking about. Ask another debater to think and then answer my question.
Four arguments against it: Just now, the other party repeatedly talked about the benefits of genetically modified cotton, but please look at the big screen. The topic we are discussing is the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified cotton. Although there are some advantages, it cannot be said that the advantages of transgenic technology outweigh the disadvantages.
Just now, the other debater has been emphasizing the uncontrollable problem. But I would like to ask, before the artificial hydrogen bomb, nuclear fusion could not be controlled. Now, laser and magnetic field can effectively control nuclear fusion. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before human beings control the sudden emergence of transgenic technology. We have the ability to solve this problem. So we can use transgenic technology, so the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Moreover, the most important thing for a country is food. Transgenic technology can solve this problem perfectly and make the national economy develop.
Counterparty: I think people can eat it safely only if they know it is safe. In the unknown situation, people are not only uneasy, but once the problem lies in transgenic technology, the waves caused far exceed the benefits brought by transgenic technology.
Argument: Nuclear technology is widely used in military and national defense. In the past, nuclear energy was also a controversial topic. Now we make nuclear energy cheap and safe through certain technical means and international management, which brings great benefits to people. Make great contributions to national defense. The same is true of transgenic technology.
Counterparty argument: let me talk about several loopholes in the other party's debate. Are there any casualties in the process of nuclear technology from uncontrollable to controllable? My answer is yes. Thousands of people were killed and injured in Hiroshima because of nuclear radiation. If a series of disadvantages of transgenic technology lead to tragedy again, there is really no need to develop transgenic technology. Transgenic technology has brought great benefits to grain. Although there will be no adverse reactions in a short time, it does not mean safety. According to the British Independent reported on May 22nd, 2005. The sequelae of genetically modified products will gradually appear after five to six years.
Three arguments: Now it is scientifically proved that transgenic technology can only be verified within four generations, so I don't know where your data comes from. Secondly, I want to tell my opponent one thing. At first, everyone didn't adapt to Xiaomi, but the damage was very small. People have eaten millet for hundreds of years, and there is one more gene about millet in their bodies. Such transgenic millet will become a very beneficial product for human beings. How does another debater explain this phenomenon? Can this phenomenon be overcome? We give a detailed data-2065438+041February 13. At the beginning of the new york transgenic debate, people's views on transgenic were as follows: only 32% people disagreed and 60% people agreed. After this debate? The support rate rose to 80%, and the support rate increased significantly. In the face of this data, how does the other party defend? The other party has never spoken through clear data. Does this mean that you can't find a suitable example? -.-
Objection: Is it true that there are many people? Truth is often in the hands of a few people.
Three arguments against it: I want to say that transgenic technology is extremely irresponsible to our citizens. China signed the International Convention on Biological Diversity on August 8, 2000. Article 23 of the Convention stipulates that strict risk assessment should be carried out on genetically modified organisms, transparency of decision-making and public participation should be increased, and citizens' opinions should be actively solicited. However, in the commercial production of rice, the Ministry of Agriculture did not ask for our advice at all. This is the big problem of transgenic technology in China, so transgenic technology can't be used in our life. Because of its imperfection, its disadvantages far outweigh its advantages.
Positive summary
First of all, hello, Chairman, and hello, fellow students. As for the policy you mentioned just now, when was it put forward and what was it? Secondly, Bio-Manufacturing has formulated genetically modified insulin and genetically modified vaccine, and all genetically modified foods imported from China are genetically modified foods. Hiroshima and Nagasaki mentioned by the other side are historical issues. If atomic bombs are not used, more casualties will be caused. More than 40% of soybeans in the world have been found to contain genetically modified ingredients, and some soybeans in the market will also be genetically modified, but so far, relevant experiments in China have not been done. Someone once said that the ingredients on flowers are not genetically modified. Where did the ingredients of genetically modified soybeans come from? We think it is necessary to promote genetic modification. For the world, besides, the global population has increased dramatically and the cultivated land has decreased continuously. To meet people's needs, we must increase food supply and rely on science and technology. At present, the application of transgenic technology has achieved remarkable results, and genetically modified food has also been on people's table. China's transgenic technology ranks first in the world, which provides technical support for the development of this technology. On the other hand, there is a great demand for transgenic technology in China, and the per capita cultivated land area in China has decreased. It is impossible to meet the current demand solely by expanding the cultivated land area, and we can only take the road of high-tech ecology. Biotechnology is undoubtedly an important way to improve grain quality and yield. If we refuse to develop, this potential market will be seized by foreign genetically modified foods. What are the advantages of genetically modified food? The first is the short breeding time. Transgenic technology can transform genes into a new variety within one month, and it does not need to spend too much time on screening and interception like traditional breeding. Second, the scope is wide. Traditional breeding can only cross rice with rice, but transgenic technology is not only that. Transgenic technology can transfer animal genes into crops, thus improving grain yield and quality, reducing costs and alleviating grain shortage. Moreover, genetically modified foods can produce healthy and disease-resistant foods. For example, genetically modified soybeans can produce substances beneficial to the heart. European scientists have developed transgenic rice rich in vitamin A and iron. Relieved the food shortage, especially in developing countries where rice is the staple food, and the vitamins in it have miraculous effects on some diseases. British scientists introduced a gene that can destroy chlorophyll variation into grass to make it evergreen all the year round, which not only plays a greening role, but also contributes to the development of animal husbandry. The positive significance of the existence of genetically modified food is that it is a new scientific and technological product. Although there are still some problems, it will be more and more perfect with the development of science and technology. We believe that as long as certain rules are followed, the development of biotechnology in China will be healthy and orderly, and our life will become more colorful because of genetically modified food brought by biotechnology. Predicting the future with good wishes, we will no longer worry about pesticide residues and food shortages. The food we eat will be fresh, and we will no longer have to endure the pain caused by various drug treatments. Maybe diabetics only need to drink a special cup of milk every day to supplement protein sugar and calcium ions. Anti-virus fruits and vegetables will become the protagonist of our daily food, and I believe that genetically modified foods will make our tomorrow more brilliant.
Counterparty summary
Although there are many people who support it, there are also many people who oppose transgenic technology all over the world. Many people have raised objections from the perspectives of food safety, gene diffusion and ecological imbalance, and think that this new technology may bring unpredictable harm to human health and living environment. Some experts pointed out that although dozens of genetically modified crops that have been popularized in the world have seriously considered their safety to human body and environment when approving, it has been proved that the past consideration is not sufficient, the understanding is limited, and there is a lack of long-term data. Many environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth, hold this view. Many people were initially skeptical about the safety of genetically modified foods. They believe that the current research on the safety of genetically modified foods is short-term and cannot effectively assess the risk of human consumption of genetically modified foods for decades. The fact that the current scientific evidence cannot prove its harmfulness does not mean that its harmful consequences will not gradually appear in the future. The effect of long-term consumption of genetically modified foods on human health is still unknown. Some people even suspect that genetically modified crops may produce new viruses, which may cause acute and chronic poisoning or carcinogenesis, teratogenesis and mutation; At the same time, the immune or allergenic substances in transgenic crops will cause abnormal or allergic reactions in human body. For example, extracting genes from raw and Brazil nuts and other crops that can cause allergies to some people and transplanting them into another crop may transfer some allergic genes at the same time, leading to allergic reactions in future generations. In addition, the changes of main nutrients, micronutrients and anti-nutritional factors in genetically modified food will reduce the nutritional value of food and make its nutritional structure unbalanced. The adverse effects of the large-scale popularization of transgenic crops on biodiversity and ecological environment are also the main reasons why many people oppose transgenic technology. Genetically modified organisms will reproduce themselves in nature and blow to other traditional cultivated crops or natural wild plants through pollen, thus making foreign genes spread in nature in an uncontrollable way, causing irreparable "genetic pollution". For example, in the United States, where the planting area of genetically modified crops is the largest, the large-scale promotion of genetically modified crops has led to many non-genetically modified crops in this country containing genetically modified seeds. In addition, in Mexico, where the origin and variety of corn are concentrated, because a large number of genetically modified corn is imported from neighboring America every year, the researchers found that the pollution rate of wild corn in the remote Oaxaca mountain area is as high as 35%, and the locals who regard corn as their parents exclaimed: "The sanctity of corn mother has been defiled!" Because genetic pollution is the only pollution in the world that can proliferate and spread with organisms and cannot be eliminated, it is more harmful than other pollution.
Once out of control, the consequences are even more terrible. Some ecologists worry that genetically modified organisms with survival advantages are brand-new species for the earth's ecosystem. If released into the natural environment, they will greatly change the competitive relationship between species, eliminate the original species in nature in the evolution process of "survival of the fittest", destroy the original natural ecological balance, and lead to species extinction and biodiversity loss. After tracking a transgenic rape field, British scientists found that transgenic rape changed the balance of weed species in the field, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of insects such as butterflies and bees in the field. They believe that this destructive effect will affect animals at higher levels of the food chain, such as sparrows and finches, and may even step onto the food chain, endangering more animals and even humans. Therefore, the harm is far greater than the benefits brought by genetic modification.