US. While debaters should note the potential promise of GMOs, they should also discuss benefits in the status quo. For example, debaters can cite to the people presently fed by access to GMO food. This may humanize the impact, and make it clear that real people have avoided a horrible death by gaining access to food. On these sorts of topics, it is easy to get lost in the numbers. Judges will appreciate sensitive and thoughtful arguments. Debaters should structure cases around food insecurity, but simultaneously maintain diversity of arguments in the rest of the case. For example, debaters can discuss economic and social arguments into the case (e.g. GMOs allow smaller farmer to grow more food and compete with the bigger corporations). This brief is a great resource for brainstorming arguments! Negative Strategy In order to preempt common affirmative offense, debaters may want to make the argument that GMOs do not actually increase food output levels. Debaters should also argue that GMOs ultimately harming agricultural ability to produce for the population. The Institute for Responsible Technologies breaks this down well: GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed
US. While debaters should note the potential promise of GMOs, they should also discuss benefits in the status quo. For example, debaters can cite to the people presently fed by access to GMO food. This may humanize the impact, and make it clear that real people have avoided a horrible death by gaining access to food. On these sorts of topics, it is easy to get lost in the numbers. Judges will appreciate sensitive and thoughtful arguments. Debaters should structure cases around food insecurity, but simultaneously maintain diversity of arguments in the rest of the case. For example, debaters can discuss economic and social arguments into the case (e.g. GMOs allow smaller farmer to grow more food and compete with the bigger corporations). This brief is a great resource for brainstorming arguments! Negative Strategy In order to preempt common affirmative offense, debaters may want to make the argument that GMOs do not actually increase food output levels. Debaters should also argue that GMOs ultimately harming agricultural ability to produce for the population. The Institute for Responsible Technologies breaks this down well: GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed
nov2014pf.docx