www.hhsdebate.org

I'll be pro for 4-1

I'll be con for 4-1

Vikram: 4-1 is their resolution. Ours is 4-2

No, Aman, it actually isn't. But I'll take both of your requests.

In general, for resolutions:

Each section is headed by an operative clause, but can the subsections by headed by anything else other than an operative clause?

Yes. Subsections usually start with things other than operative clauses.

So Aman, can you tell me what is actually wrong with 4-2. Honestly, I think it gets the fundementals down correctly.

As for the opposing bill, its almost the same as 4-2 execpt diffrently worded. However, I have a problem with this little section right here:

EWang wrote:2. Requests governments give incentives to private organizations that choose to invest in improvements in nations combating hunger.

Why do private organizations need incentives, let me ask you that. What kind of incentives would you be suggesting here. Why give them anything at all, if there going to help there going to help.

I agree that the two resolutions are very similar and could be combined (here on the forums!). My only problem with resolution 2 is the emphasis it places on GMOs. While they can and deserve a place on a resolution regarding hunger and the price of food, it is necessary to know that there are alternatives that are less risky and easier to implement. While GMOs can help solve the problem, they aren't a panacea.

Governments give economic incentives to private organization to spur change. Obviously, some decisions may be riskier than corporations are willing to take in these unstable times, but given reason to, those decisions can become wise courses of actions for those companies.

would we even have a debate if the resolutions were combined on the forums?
And to Aman, sorry if i confused u with the post where i was asking if 4-2 was going to be posted I just wanted to see it, but 'm a sponsor for 4-1 so naturally i'm gonna speak pro for it..

Viktram, we could always just debate the one resolution just like how we debate one bill in MC.

alright thanks eric, and its vikram.. no T

BeWang wrote:My only problem with resolution 2 is the emphasis it places on GMOs.

Well sir, I am affended greatly! Notice the word at the beginning of section 1, recomends.

Jfanders wrote:1. Recommends the further research and testing of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) for the following purposes:
a. The production of crops demonstrating the following advantages
i. Increased nutritional value
ii. Faster growing speed
iii.Affordability
b. Studies on the safety of GMOs for human consumption
c. Assessment of environmental impact
d. Economic viability

Austrialia would like to know what the problem with suggesting futher testing and research be done on it. No emphisis is being placed upon it at all. Again, all it is doing is recomending that GMO's have research in those following areas that way in the future, it can be used as an alternative without any of the problems mentioned at the work session.

Its your first and biggest section.

Even if it is our first and biggest section, enlighten me Japan, how does this mean were placing imediate importance on it. If we were placing importance on it, it would be everywhere in our bill! However, there is only one section on it.

Vikram: Sorry that was my misunderstanding.

Bert: I don't see anything wrong with them asking to do more research. Like I said, if there are tests which PROVE that GMO's are not harmful IN ANY WAY, then Austria shall give its support to GMO's

Fanders: I'm not gonna tell you all my arguments! If I do, i'll have nothing to say when i go up. But i do agree that the two resolutions are very similar.

To most people, first is prestigious.

Consider it a matter of caution. Rather than invest in a relatively new technology thats not fully mature, the UN can spend time promoting methods that have been proved to work by the countless farmers in the more developed nations.

And to the newer members with gigantic avatars, make them smaller. Its annoying to have to constantly scroll up and down to see the other posts. Especially when the posts are one-liners.