GMO crops must be illegal.

As Pro bears the BOP, all that I must do is overturn his reasons for making GMO Crops illegal. This should not be a difficult process as there is very little actual argument to refute; most of his case is made up of fallacious appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies, combined with numerous unevidenced claims. The emotional, yet unevidenced claims, begin at the beginning of Pro's argument, as he proudly proclaims that "GMOs are anti-human technology. "He process by arguing that since one type of GMO corn has been found to have cause tumors in rats. Pro says pictures of rats with tumors are somewhere in his argument, although I didn't see them. Even if they were, this would not be solid scientific evidence on which he could base his claim. And furthermore, the argument commits the fallacy of composition by concluding that because one GMO crop has negative impacts, all GMO crops have negative impacts. Next, more emotion when Pro writes "What this reveals is that genetic engineering turns FOOD into POISON. "Then Pro writes: "But the real science now coming out tells a different picture: GMOs may be creating an entire generation of cancer victims who have a frighteningly heightened risk of growing massive mammary gland tumors caused by the consumption of GM foods. "Unfortunately, Pro provides none of this scientific evidence to support this claim, or his next claim that GMOs may turn out to be the "worst and most costly blunder in the history of western science the real science now coming out tells a different picture: GMOs may be creating an entire generation of cancer victims who have a frighteningly heightened risk of growing massive mammary gland tumors caused by the consumption of GM foods. "And he repeats his unwarranted mantra: "Remember: GMOs are an anti-human technology. And those who promote them are, by definition, enemies of humankind. "So far, no scientific evidence. That appears to change in Pro's next section when he claims that "GMOs are unfit for human consumption," yet his link only yields information on a study that may or may not find negative things about GMOs for humans. More emotion still as Pro lists what he claims to be the tactics of the biotech industry, using all-capitalized words like ""FALSIFY" and "MANIPULATE," although those words seem more to describe my opponent's unevidenced case. There really is no need for me to go through the rest of Pro's argument pointing out every little unevidenced claim and emotional fallacy. I trust that the astute reader will definitely pick up on those things, as they are not hard to spot. The only other evidence presented by Pro in his argument is under the section called "Tidbits" in which he claims that some GMO wheat can cause liver problems. Not only does this not help his case as it commits the fallacy of composition again, but his link to back up the claim is broken. My opponent has not provided any strong evidence to demonstrate the harm of GMO crops as a whole, but has replaced evidence with passion. Even if he could prove that some GMOs are harmful to humans, that does not mean that GMOs must be illegal, as stated in the resolution. A better solution than illegalization is the one proposed in my opponent's own video of Dennis Kucinich. In the video, Kucinich proposes a need for better labeling so that people are aware of what they are eating. This is perfectly reasonable. The resolution has not been supported, and therefore is negated.