I might troll on occassion, but its still in the context of the debate

I don't throw the entire debate off its rails and change the topic on the channel

And it is debating,

When you debate, you try to persuade your audience, not the other person,
And nothing makes your side look better, than to get the other side to stumble and quiet down

its why SJW's shame and yell

"But its a tactic, it throws people off" .... not an argument 😉

It doesn't have to be, if it works to get your point across

so you dont have to present arguments in a debate?

then its not a debate

And if you see it in someone and call them on it,

It makes THEM look foolish 😉 which promotes your side

so thats still not a debate LOL

"It makes THEM look foolish 😉 which promotes your side" 😹

👌 🐸

hey mate, i don't make the rules,

If debating was all about who presents the truest facts, the Right-wing would be ruling the world

If you present facts, but are a dick, people will still pick the other side, because they simply don't want to give you the win

Debating is as much a game of wits as it is about presenting truth

otherwise, all politicians would be scientists

sure, im not even gonna pretend that some of those tacitcs cannot work out in my favor too

oh they will, plenty of times

but still not even going to pretend like im debating with any sort of arguments.... cuz would just be manipulating ppl subtley in that case 😉

If you perform such acts poorly, the audience will realise you're talking shit, and they will side with the other side

welcome to debating

well Mike Cernovich is effective.... but he plays on THAT front of the battleline where it belongs (trolling, etc)

Look at Trump for example, his debate points were

"I'm gonna bring back Jobs,
I'm gonna do great,
You're Wrong,
I'm smart,
MAGA"

He still inspired people to vote for him

and its not all "They just hated Hillary more"
Cuz Trump also won in the Republican party

yeah, doesnt change the whole idea that debates require arguments... otherwise pure manipulative sophistry fluff

well i did bring arguments

you can't just discount me trolling on the side as me having no argument at all

dirtying the waters with trolling too tho

never said that... all i said was that i noticed you have a tendency to regress into trolling after your arguments start to fall apart

nah, you don't get to decide my arguments fall appart just because you don't agree with them

like today, you accused me of trolling right off the bat

My argument cant fall appart if my opening statement is "trolling"

lol okay ... that is what i have observed 😉

then you're wrong

mostly referring to actually the "you would force vaccinate other ppl against their will" comment you made earlier is when i realized that you like to regress into trolling

so it was fresh on my mind 😉

nah i was trolling when i said i'd strap them on the table personally :P

Since i support mandatory vaccines, i do technically wanna force vaccinate people against their will

but its been 30 minutes since you said you had to go, shouldn't we shelve this discussion for another time? 😦

okay... welll..... we have a physical removal plan for ppl who refuse to abide by the new NAP social contract 😉 i guess youre safe since youre on the other side of the planet tho lol

until the terrorists get me 😦

EU loves inviting them over

alrighty, dude. well gg heh

yeah, good talk 😉 take care

#walkaway is fake. Change my mind.

Beucase Trump is president?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So, heres a discussion I had before. Theres the new strain of rice, that can grow anywhere.

Even in salt water, should solve food supply shortages in areas closer to the coastal areas.

So my family has always been part of the anti GMO group.

So they are saying that this is bad news.

The only answers I am getting is stuff like "its unnatural" or that its "healthier" than the organic options.

Has it been tested/grown?

Supposedly.

But its been decades since GMOs are around, and I still dont think I got a straight answer as to its health effects.

And it felt like the anti gmo crowd were the first to cry foul of it.

That just speaks uninformed to me.

I think being uninform is okay, but the willingness to listen and accept the 'truth' is more important

I mean, its a dirty word as of now, but how much of that is from fearmongers, concerned citizens, or from actual results.

We've been genetically modifying our food for as long as we've been growing it. Doing it through artificial selection vs more modern means isn't what matters

It's the end result that does

They say its different

And that splicing is bad because its manmade and unnatural.

There's nothing really to argue against there.

Lots of stuff is unnatural. Doesn't mean it's bad.

Now, the legal practices behind GMOs are something to complain about

Isn't curare natural?

Thats my only issue with it

Mosanto's treatment of farmers does not help with the GMO situation

There's also the possibility of weaponizing GMO bacteria/parasites

I wouldn't go so far as saying that we GMO our food since we've been growing it, rather we selectively breed most of them

All that matters is that the food should go to the people who will need it most. Prompt help will be more useful than delayed help.

But the problem with GMO is that we are not sure of it's long term effects to the ecology and to the human body

SO heres the thing.

I think that's reasons for most people to distrust GMO

THe people who are starving now. Which will help them live longer.

Some food? Or something that keeps them alive longer but will kill them assuming GMOs do that.

Its counting on the GMOs keeping them alive long enough for a better alternative to come along.

Or else there will be no one to help when that alternative comes about

True, I think it's okay to grow it first, based on the benefits that it helps people, until we have a better alternative

But I'm worried for the future where we do have a GMO, but it's long term effect might be hard to reverse or even irreversible

There are a actually facilities that archive seeds of all kind in preparation for emergencies.

The only thing I can see that is ireversible by then, would be reliance on it.

Imagine if all GMOs died, youd have alot of people starving if they fall back to previous seed strains.

Like currently?

Yea

Exactly, we have plants that end up getting wiped out by disease.

Since all of them are the same.

Yeah, biodiversity is important here for sure.

Thats why I said, overreliance is the issue here.

Learn from the Irish

We don't want to replace every crop with one super-rice

You see people talking about cocoa possibly going extinct... There's probably a lot of money for whoever can figure out a way to make that grow in new environments

there is NO consensus about GMO health safety

Because they're NOT necessarily safe. You're changing the organism's DNA to make it a new one. So that means you COULD make something poisonous, but that doesn't mean changing corn to have bigger kernels is going to necessarily be unsafe if that's all that is changed.

DNA is a highly complex set of code, and sometimes things are linked in ways we previously didn't understand. That means we should be careful moving forward and not put all our eggs in one basket. It doesn't mean avoiding all change.

They're changing the genes in the corn to turn the freaking frogs gay!!

Isn't kermit gay?

Ok, but really on some level he was right. But the chemicals are actually turning frogs trans.

ya, its the atrazine and other indocrine disruptors and estrogen mimickers

Sargon did a hilarious video on the "Gay Frog Holocaust" or something liek that