Greenpeace Is Evil

1. DDTsA part per million is one milligram per kilogram (1 / 1,000,000). To reach the bare minimum of toxicity (5 grams, as I noted in the previous round) you'd need 5000 parts per million. Even with a fish at the bottom of the food chain, a few parts per million cannot be turned into 5000 parts per million easily. I'd like evidence to how that DDT poisoning is a reality in the food supply. For the third time, we're looking at one the net. Like I stated before, by supporting action xyz, an organization is partially responsible for the consequences -- good or bad -- of xyz. By supporting DDT bans in third world nations for 30 years, Greenpeace is responsible for the millions of lives that could have been saved. A Few poisoned fish do not take precedence over millions of lives. Until PRO can provide evidence that either a) More have been saved by Greenpeace for preventing DDT or b) DDT isn't an effective pesticide that saves millions you must vote CON on this issue.2. GMOsMy opponent hasn't in any way contested the "If you supported it, you're partially responsible for it" value that I posited, so assume he agrees. Thus, if Greenpeace supports getting rid of crops such as golden rice, then the outcome of that is partially on them. Greenpeace actively campaigns against GMOs that I have PROVEN to be beneficial in fighting disease and deficiencies; my opponent has not contested Golden Rice's abilities. Thus, he concedes them -- meaning that he acknowledges the capabilities of golden rice, and thus, is forced to admit that when golden rice distribution or development is hampered in any way, especially by Greenpeace, there are grave consequences in the Third World affecting million. 3. CON's Case"Becasue of what Green peace has stopped, we dont know what they prevented."My case shows that they've prevented the lives of people who suffered from malaria, and they've prevented practical foods from reaching starving people worldwide. We know exactly what they have prevented, and until my opponent proves otherwise, we can safely say that they've prevented more good than bad."just imagine what an Atomic bomb would do to our icecaps and polar bears."One more atomic bomb would do nearly nothing. Literally. There have been 2000+ nuclear tests since the 1940s. See the video for a visualization of that - it really picks up around 1:45. The US herself has detonate over 1000 nuclear bombs. http://www.youtube.com...'But If man wants to keep hurting the natural ecosystems ov the oceans, well OGMs may be all we have left, and to be honest, your daughter could hit puberty at age 7.'Con has yet to show why we need to take the environment over a real threat of human life. He hasn't provided any evidence to say that Greenpeace's end goal - a safe environment - is more important than stopping malaria and ending vitamin deficiencies and hunger for millions. Your evidence doesn't support the idea of GMO-induced puberty. The article itself, if you read it, points out that obesity and overabundance of food (which I'm sure it a first world problem, not a third world problem) are some causes. GMOs aren't even mentioned in the article at all.'If you want to take your OGMs and make little African girls hit pubery at age 7, then go ahead. We dont even the full impact on these, and greenpeace being proactive could be a game changer. 'See above. Conjecture - no evidence. As for the other sentence - imagine if someone had been told to "hold up" on the smallpox vaccine, the polio vaccine, or DDT. People would die. GMOs have been around for years and little to no detriment has been found, especially when the choice is GMOs versus starving."Look back to the discuvery of america, if the spanish had thake the procaution that the green peace is, you could be arguing "they wont let us take the bible in there?!?" when in accutality, the desiese spread and effective killing of 94%"There also wouldn't be an America if no one colonized. Risks are a part of life. But the risks are heavily outweighed by the advantages when it comes to DDTs and GMOs, as I've explained.4. ConclusionCon has literally provided no evidence to support most of his claims. I have put forward that Greenpeace causes inherent harms through its former opposition to DDT and its opposition to GMOs. Con hasn't touched these - he hasn't denied DDT and GMO helpfulness, hasn't denied that fact that DDTs and GMOs could save millions, and instead points to a limited number of cases where Greenpeace has shown there are a few problems with DDT, and where Greenpeace has saved a whale or two. There is no way around it: You must vote PRO. Thanks for reading, and thanks to Spartan for this debate!