Genetic engineering, a development in science and technology that has enabled the genetic modification of crops among other organisms since the 1970s, has stirred heated debate among various stakeholders in the issue. This struggle is one consisting of two sides set in their own beliefs, refusing to even consider the validity of any opposition. As a result, it is difficult to establish common ground and attempt to develop policies and practices that can best suit all members involved while still being able to utilize a breakthrough technology in beneficial ways to society. This research project was conducted upon one particular case in the timeline of genetic modification of crops: the introduction of the Rainbow papaya in Hawaii in 1998 and its subsequent ramifications. The goal was to establish a more detailed understanding of the landscape of a debate that can appear to be based mainly upon the science of genetic engineering. Upon analysis of 22 news articles spanning the years 1999-2019 it was determined that the types of arguments themselves, both in favor of and against GM, fall into a wide range of categories that span much more than simply the science. Arguments both in favor and in opposition are nuanced and actually often seek similar end goals. There is potential to utilize these common goals and priorities in productive ways once stakeholders in the debate are aware of them. Finding commonalities will enable progress in the safe, effective implementation of a technology that has the potential to provide immense benefit in various ways in a manner that considers all perspectives involved.