Tournament: valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: trent probably | Judge: tj folei
The harm of not believing in God and following his will always outweighs the aff. Even without prove that God exists, we should still default to believing in God because of Pascal’s wager. This says that we get more benefit from believing in God than we get from not. If we believe in God but God doesn’t exist there is no harm, but if God does exist we get eternal joy. If we don’t believe in God and he doesn’t exist there is no harm, but if he does exist then we get eternal Hell. So, if we believe in God the worst possible outcome is nothing, but the best possible outcome is Heaven. If we don’t believe in God the worst possible outcome is Hell, but the best possible outcome is nothing. The benefits of believing in God far outweigh the harms of not believing.
And, GMOs are from Satan. Melbourne preaches:
Both the GM concept and GM products are evil, and condemned by God's Word. Even the godless British media can perceive that GM organisms (GMO) are demonic. They have wisely labelled them "Frankenstein foods", after Mary Shelley's monstrous literary invention that ultimately destroyed its creator Baron Frankenstein. Nobody wants GMO products in Europe, despite New World Order companies like DuPont and Monsanto trying to force them on farmers and consumers using all kinds of propaganda, pressure, false claims, and subterfuge. However, you ask are they empirically wrong in God's sight, and the Bible gives a clear answer: Yes! Genesis chapter one describes God creating seed and fruit-bearing plants, shrubs, and trees, each one having the perfect seed within to continue reproducing itself indefinitely. He called them "kinds", science calls them "species". (Keep in mind that though the terms are analogous they are not synonymous. For the purpose of this discussion, we may take the word "kind" as approximating to "species", though it is actually broader than a single species.) He did the same with animals, including domestic livestock. Each kind, or species, duplicating itself down the generations, even through the intense corruption caused by The Fall. After The Fall of Man the LORD introduced the Law to remind us of our inherent sinfulness and need for the Savior. Aspects of the Levitical Law governed the preservation of the kinds He had determined. So we see instructions such as Lev. 19:19 KJV; Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Gender here means mate with. The clear point is to keep the kinds pure, distinct, and not to cross them. This is echoed in other scriptures such as Deut. 22:9 KJV; Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. God wants the species (kinds) to be maintained, trying to cross them defiles them. The principle of improvement of a "kind" by selective breeding of a particular species, such as barley or sheep, does not corrupt the species barrier, and so is biblically acceptable. Genetic modification of species directly contradicts God's word by taking genes from one kind (species) and mingling them with another kind (species). It is sin. The progeny of such attempted crosses are usually self-aborted, born dead, or are sterile. This is part of God's inbuilt protective mechanism to preserve the kinds. But wicked men have devised ways to circumvent such divine blocks, and they are producing all sorts of inter-species crosses. They tout their new species as "improvements", make grand false claims, ignore the fact that God has condemned them, and they will perish under the curse. Both the word of God and the Spirit of God in believer's hearts unequivocally condemn genetically modified organisms. Therefore, resolve today to have nothing to do with the sin of genetic modification, avoid all GM products, and denounce those guilty of defying God, who thereby bring a curse on their families and nations.
Melbourne, Colin. "GM Food Crops and the Bible." Born Again Christian Info. The Will of God, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
Biotechnology is tampering with the divine will of God.
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
God. “Bible”.
We ought to publicly shame scientists and never consume GMOs unless we wish to rot in h-e-double hockey sticks.
Butterfly DA
Butterflies are important Bwindi Researchers:
Butterflies are categorized as keystone species, which enable many smaller species of insects to thrive and reproduce in an ecosystem. In simple terms, it denotes that conservation of butterflies also conserves other species of insects. In fact, the basic health of our ecosystem is directly dependent on the number of butterfly species. Butterflies act as indicators in monitoring environmental health. Play an important role in food chains and food webs. Excellent pollinators Bio control of weeds Butterflies are very sensitive to pollution and have been used as bioindicators to detect the pollution levels.
Bwindi Researchers. "Category Archives: Butterflies." Bwindi Researchers. Wildlife Direct, 9 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
Use of genetically modified food linked to declining population of butterflies. Chung:
GMO most commonly refers to scientists modifying in labs not the forces of nature. The new study led by Tyler Flockhart, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Guelph, showed that the number of milkweed plants in the U.S. corn belt, where most monarchs breed, has fallen 20 per cent over the past few decades. "It's a massive number of milkweeds — about 1.5 billion milkweed plants," he said. This past winter, monarch butterfly numbers at the wintering grounds in Mexico fell to their lowest levels since records started being kept in 1993. (Associated Press) The study, published today in the Journal of Animal Ecology, shows this decline in milkweed is the main cause of the monarch's recent population decline, not deforestation in Mexico. If this milkweed loss continues, the study predicts, monarch populations will fall at least another 14 per cent and there is a five per cent chance they will be driven nearly to extinction over the next century. Study co-author Ryan Norris, a biology professor at the University of Guelph, said that "likely the biggest cause of loss of milkweed is the adoption of genetically modified crops." Farmers have been increasingly planting corn and soybeans resistant to herbicides, and then applying those herbicides liberally on their fields. That kills off plants between the rows of crops that aren't resistant, such as milkweed. That's been a big problem for the butterflies. Even now, 67 per cent of milkweed plants in the butterflies' breeding grounds are found in "agriculture-intensive landscapes," the study reported.
Chung, Emily. "Genetically Modified Crops Linked to Monarch Butterfly Decline." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 05 June 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
Impact of losing butterflies is mass extinction. Bardroff:
A keystone species, by definition, has the power to largely effect entire ecosystems simply by performing natural behaviors for survival. Impressive? We’d say so. Many ecologists consider apex predators such as sharks, killer whales, and wolves to be keystone organisms, since they maintain balance of biodiversity and resource (e.g. food) availability. From the top to the bottom of the food chain, there are many species of both flora and fauna that are crucial to the existence of their ecosystems as we know them. So, maybe ecosystems would collapse if keystone species go extinct, but how would this happen and why should we care? The planet is currently experiencing a mass extinction of life – one out of six mass extinctions that have occurred throughout Earth’s history (based on scientific estimations). Since the number of species on Earth is an ambiguous approximation, it is challenging to accurately quantify how many species are becoming extinct. However, according to the World Wildlife Fund, scientists believe between 10,000 and 100,000 species cease to exist every year due to habitat loss, resource depletion, climate change, and other factors. How could this be? Wouldn’t we hear about these organisms on the news? Perhaps the projected tens or hundreds of species going extinct each day are not the cute or beautiful creatures we are taught to care about. In fact, you may not be aware of many species that are actually very important to our own existence! If we lose keystone species, extinction rates will dramatically increase. We cannot afford to be losing more species! Take a look at some species we should be concerned about.
Bardroff, Jenna. "If These 8 Species Go Extinct, Entire Ecosystems Will Disappear." One Green Planet. N.p., 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
Agroecological CP
Counterplan is to recognize that the harms from use of GMO technologies outweigh the benefits in order to implement a new system of agriculture. Use of GMO food is rising in the sqou. Counterplan is necessary to challenge harms of DA and corporate greed. Agroecological agriculture is a force for grass-root rural change that would be independent from the cartel of powerful biotech/agribusiness companies. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritizes the needs of farmers and consumers. It represents an alternative to corporate-controlled agriculture.
Agroecoculture is defined as an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, or enhance ecological harmony. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.
www.nationalsustainablesales.com/organic
Much of the needed food can be produced by small farmers located throughout the world using agroecological technologies Altieri:
In fact, new rural development approaches and low-input technologies spearheaded by farmers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world are already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national, and regional levels in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Pretty, l995). Yield increases are being achieved by using technological approaches, based on agroecological principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment (Rosset, l999). When such features are optimized, yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, as well as a series of ecological services such conservation of biodiversity, soil and water restoration and conservation, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, and so on (Altieri et al., 1998). These results are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation in the developing world, but their potential and further spread depends on investments, policies, institutional support, and attitude changes on the part of policy makers and the scientific community; especially the CGIAR who should devote much of its efforts to the 320 million poor farmers living in marginal environments. Failure to promote such people-centered agricultural research and development due to the diversion of funds and expertise towards biotechnology will forego an historical opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign, and socially uplifting ways.
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. University of California, Berkeley and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy"Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum. AgBioForum, 22 Feb. 2000. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
Proper funding would solve better using agroecological approaches. Altieri 2:
As the private sector has exerted more and more dominance in advancing new biotechnologies, the public sector has had to invest a growing share of its scarce resources in enhancing biotechnological capacities in public institutions, including the CGIAR, and in evaluating and responding to the challenges posed by incorporating private sector technologies into existing farming systems. Such funds would be much better used to expand support for ecologically based agricultural research, as all the biological problems that biotechnology aims at can be solved using agroecological approaches. The dramatic effects of rotations and intercropping on crop health and productivity, as well as of the use of biological control agents on pest regulation have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. The problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private funders at the expense of public good research, such as biological control, organic production systems and general agroecological techniques. Civil society must request for more research on alternatives to biotechnology by universities and other public organizations (Krimsky and Wrubel, l996). There is also an urgent need to challenge the patent system and intellectual property rights intrinsic to the World Trade Organization (WTO) which not only provide multinational corporations with the right to seize and patent genetic resources, but will also accelerate the rate at which market forces already encourage monocultural cropping with genetically uniform transgenic varieties. Based on history and ecological theory, it is not difficult to predict the negative impacts of such environmental simplification on the health of modern agriculture (Altieri, l996).
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. University of California, Berkeley and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy"Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum. AgBioForum, 22 Feb. 2000. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
AT Aff
Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. Altieri:
The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make third world agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits (Busch et al., l990). This is illustrated by reviewing the principle technologies on the market today: (1) herbicide resistant crops, such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans, seeds that are tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and (2) "Bt" (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops which are engineered to produce their own insecticide. In the first instance, the goal is to win a greater herbicide market-share for a proprietary product and, in the second, to boost seed sales at the cost of damaging the usefulness of a key pest management product (the Bacillus thuringiensis based microbial insecticide) relied upon by many farmers, including most organic farmers, as a powerful alternative to insecticides . These technologies respond to the need of biotechnology companies to intensify farmers' dependence upon seeds protected by so-called "intellectual property rights" which conflict directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share or store seeds (Hobbelink, l991). Whenever possible corporations will require farmers to buy a company's brand of inputs and will forbid farmers from keeping or selling seed. By controlling germplasm from seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to extract the most profit from their investment (Krimsky and Wrubel, l996).
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. University of California, Berkeley and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy"Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum. AgBioForum, 22 Feb. 2000. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
Recent experimental trials have shown that genetically engineered seeds do not increase the yield of crops. Altieri:
A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations where Bt crops or herbicide tolerant crops (HTCs) fared better, they exhibited increased yields between 5-30. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar conventionally bred varieties (USDA, l999).
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. University of California, Berkeley and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy"Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum. AgBioForum, 22 Feb. 2000. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
There are risks associated with eating GM foods. Altieri:
Many scientists claim that the ingestion of genetically engineered food is harmless. Recent evidence, however, shows that there are potential risks of eating such foods as the new proteins produced in such foods could: (1) act themselves as allergens or toxins; (2) alter the metabolism of the food producing plant or animal, causing it to produce new allergens or toxins; or (3) reduce its nutritional quality or value. In the case of (3), herbicide resistant soybeans can contain less isoflavones, an important phytoestrogen present in soybeans, believed to protect women from a number of cancers. At present, developing countries are importing soybean and corn from the United States, Argentina, and Brazil. Genetically engineered foods are beginning to flood the markets in the importing countries, yet no one can predict all their health effects on consumers, who are unaware that they are eating such food. Because genetically engineered food remains unlabeled, consumers cannot discriminate between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE food, and should serious health problems arise, it will be extremely difficult to trace them to their source. Lack of labeling also helps to shield the corporations that could be potentially responsible from liability (Lappe and Bailey, l998).
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. University of California, Berkeley and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy"Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum. AgBioForum, 22 Feb. 2000. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
GM foods accelerate pest resistance. Altieri:
Transgenic plants which produce their own insecticides, closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which is itself rapidly failing due to pest resistance to insecticides. Instead of the failed "one pest-one chemical" model, genetic engineering emphasizes a "one pest-one gene" approach, shown over and over again in laboratory trials to fail, as pest species rapidly adapt and develop resistance to the insecticide present in the plant (Alstad and Andow, l995). Not only will the new varieties fail over the short-to-medium term, despite so-called voluntary resistance management schemes (Mallet and Porter, l992), but in the process may render useless the natural Bt-pesticide which is relied upon by organic farmers and others desiring to reduce chemical dependence. Bt crops violate the basic and widely accepted principle of integrated pest management (IPM), which is that reliance on any single pest management technology tends to trigger shifts in pest species or the evolution of resistance through one or more mechanisms (NRC, l996). In general, the greater the selection pressure across time and space, the quicker and more profound the pests evolutionary response. An obvious reason for adopting this principle is that it reduces pest exposure to pesticides, retarding the evolution of resistance. But when the product is engineered into the plant itself, pest exposure leaps from minimal and occasional to massive and continuous exposure, dramatically accelerating resistance (Gould, l994). Bacillus thuringiensis will rapidly become useless, both as a feature of the new seeds and as an old standby sprayed when needed by farmers that want out of the pesticide treadmill (Pimentel et al., l989).
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. University of California, Berkeley and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy"Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Help the Developing World." AgBioForum. AgBioForum, 22 Feb. 2000. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.
