BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GMO foods should not be required to be labeled

okie dokie time for my final point as to why gmo containing foods should not be required to be labeled.Lets just assume that gmo's are as harmful as proposed, what are the claimed health effects?the 2 main claims are that glyphosates cause cancer or change our dna. theses are pretty big claims.If these claims were true then surely more action then labeling would be required. I mean a company cannot put arsenic in their baby formula so long as they put a label on it stating so.now you may argue that cigarettes cause cancer and are legal to sell. however they're not a food stuff or medicine. so it's a different scenario. the reason for cigarettes being legal is due to their use for a long part of history and the difficulty in policing their use. gmo foods do not face these issues. If gmo foods were as harmful as claimed such as causing cancer, they're use would be completely discontinued. their cultivation would become illegal. now lets swap it around and assume that gmo's are completely harmless. If so then why label them?. if there is no difference in their nutritional content from organic food stuffs then there is no requirement to label them. it would mean that people who choose not to eat them are doing so due to a personal ideology and philosophy that is flawed and incorrect. Now even though this ideology is wrong, they have every right to exercise it. however as much as it is their right to exercise it, it is also their responsibility to exercise it. if they wish to avoid gmo products due to a personal yet unfounded belief about them then that is not the responsibility of the companies to assist with that. you cannot use the force of the state to help you boycott a product due to your own personal beliefs.so with these two scenarios explored lets put a fork in this debate.if gmo's are indeed as bad as claimed by anti gmo proponents then they would be made illegal rather then labeled.if gmo's are not dangerous then there is no reason to label them. so either way gmo foods should not be labeled. oh and here's a wee picture to finish on
GMO foods should not be required to be labeled

GMOWe need to label them because, hey, it's just a label, why the fuckk, not? Assuming Gimos are good they freak a lot of people the fvuck out. Some people think there bad and even if they are wrong they should still have a choice in eating them or not.Furthreless, GMOS have harmed people. I know a guy at my church who gets really irradable when he eats an gmo. One time he accidently had an gmo and went to the police station and started yelling at everyone. He was tased in his grown and had to go to the hospitel where he almost died!I one time was eating the cookie and noticed it was an gmo. I freaked out. Later I had really bad diherra and it caused permement damage to my butt. I had to spend a week in this iron butt and have surgery. It also ruined my apartment and I had to move. SO yes GMOs do cause damage.Other reported harsm For one antibotic resistence "By attaching the desired gene to an antibiotic resistance gene the new GM plant can be tested by growing it in a solution containing the corresponding antibiotic. If the plant survives scientists know that it has taken up the antibiotic resistance gene along with the desired gene. There is concern that bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals could pick up an antibiotic resistance gene from a GM plant before the DNA becomes completely digested (GEO-PIE website). "http://enhs.umn.edu...An GMO can also decrease the nutiritanl value of the foods. We don't know how much nature wants us to have, modifieing the O will screw with the nutrientsGeneticliy M'ing the O has also caused the autisms. We see when you're geneticly m'ing the o the A goes up. This is what GMOS cause.its horribalbe. Check the video for more proof.http://www.youtube.com...This sh1t needs to be labeled.!Case is the rest.
TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON)

Thanks, and good luck to you too! I believe that Donald Trump would make a better president then his former presidential running mate John Kasich for the following reasons...1. Donald Trump is antiestablishment he can not be bought he is already a millionaire and has already proved that he will not be controlled by anyone which is exactly what we need in our Presidential Office. 2. Donald Trump has managment skills and he will be able to relenquish the powers to experts that he can place in specific places that will be smart and they will know about there specific jobs making Donald Trump an even stronger presidential candidate. 3. Donald Trump has more experience then Kasich with ecanomical issues he has already made plenty of jobs around the world. And he will do even more as president.
TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON)

1. Trump has created thousands of jobs by hiring individuals. Unless he is looking to hire only for the government and its various agencies, he has no real experience with enacting policies that help small businesses, reducing the employment rate (there is no evidence that people hired by Trump would not have found a different job), and implementing taxes. Kasich has done all of this and he has been very successful. 2. While what you say is true about Trump putting people where they are strongest, he has only done this for business, not politics. Kasich has experience with putting together a Cabinet - he has one right now as governor of Ohio. 3. Here's a quote from PolitiFact regarding the Trump's comments on Gonzalo Curiel: "On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' in presiding over the litigation given that he is 'of Mexican heritage' and a member of a Latino lawyers association." [1]. The same source then rated the claim that the group Curiel belongs to is 'pro-Mexican', as Trump later suggested, as "mostly false" [2]. I never said that the statements were 'racist' seeing as 'Mexican' is a nationality and not every Mexican is Hispanic. What I did bring up about racism was Trump's remarks and actions regarding African-Americans, which has no yet been rebuked, along with what I said about sexism towards Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly and Trump's refusal to immediately disavow David Duke's endorsement. SOURCES [1] http://www.politifact.com... [2] http://www.politifact.com...
TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON)

1.Yes so trump might not have experience in politics but since he was a regular citizen he has made thousands of jobs, and he isn't even president yet! 2.Also he has more people to put in the cabnit and he is defentily best at putting people in there strongest places since he did this many times growing the Trump name. 3. Trump is not racist Counter to the racism charge, Trump is actually telegraphing to the nation, through psychological projection, that he would most likely behave the same way as the judge given the same situation. This is not racism he just wants to win.
TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON)

Rebuttal ROUND ONE 1. Kasich, despite having years of political experience, rejects the establishment label. In his words, "I had a national reporter say, 'There's three lanes. There's the establishment lane, the anti-establishment lane, and then there's the Kasich lane.'" [1]. 2. I see what my opponent is saying, but couldn't Kasich also put experts in "specific places", thus making him a stronger candidate? That's basically what the Cabinet is. Clinton, if elected will do the same. Sanders, if elected, would have done the same. Cruz, if elected, would have done the same. Every President has done this, and there is no guarantee that Trump's Cabinet would have been superior to Kasich's Cabinet, or Cruz's Cabinet, or Sander's Cabinet, or Clinton's Cabinet. 3. Kasich has been in politics for over thirty years. Over those years, he dramatically reduced unemployment in Ohio, balanced the Federal budget, cut taxes, eliminated overspending, and helped small businesses grow. Over Trump's years in business, he went bankrupt not four, but six times [2]. ROUND TWO 1. My opponent did not respond to my accusations of Trump's racism in the 20th century towards African-Americans, his sexist remarks towards Fiorina and especially Megyn Kelly, and his reaction to Gonzalo Curiel and the Trump University case. Instead, they responded to the last sentence of my anti-Trump contention regarding Kasich being more professional than Trump, and that we need an 'unprofessional' candidate. If the President is going to be dealing with Congress, the Supreme Court, the United Nations, world leaders, and foreign governments, they need to have some level of professionalism. 2. My opponent argues that Trump has created at least 34,000 jobs. As of right now, the population of Ohio is 11,594,163 [3]. Kasich, as governor, reduced unemployment by 4.5%. This means that under Kasich's policies, approximately half a million people became employed. He will use this same technique as President. 3. I am unaware of how much Kasich's plan would save taxpayers, I cannot find a source that discusses it. What I can say is that Trump has no experience with taxation, other than being on the receiving end (although I'm not too sure with the whole tax return story). Kasich, however, saved Ohioans $5 billion with tax cuts as governor. SOURCES [1] http://www.ontheissues.org... [2] http://www.politifact.com... [3] http://population2016.com...
TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON)

1. Yes Trump is not as professional as some other Canadents but that's what we need right now! And clearly since Donald Trump is the Republican Nomination that's what the American people want! 2. Trump has already created jobs at Trump Shuttle that had about 1,000 employees. And has also hired at least 34,000 jobs and he isn't even president yet and by listening to his interviews he truly wants to help create jobs. 3. Mr. Trump"s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... https://www.quora.com...
Russia as World Cup 2018 hosts.

That is exactly my point. Russia as a country displays many of the bad habits that you have stated. This should not, however, impede on the 144 million people in Russia that are so excited by the prospect of a World Cup in Russia. Sport, as always, should be separated from politics. Ireland is a prime example of why. The sport Gaelic football has very small number of protestants playing it. Why? Because the links between politics, religion and sport are so great. The only way to take steps forward in sport is to isolate it from religion and politics. It should not be used as a tool to punish a political regime. Also, you failed to address my point about Qatar, which I believe to be of significant importance to this debate. Clearly the changing of one location will create the image of, whether rightly or wrongly, a weak FIFA that can be bullied into changing the rules and cause a landslide of complaints for future World Cup hosts. Previous dealings suggest FIFA will not bend to such pressures as Blatter is very content to follow through with what he thinks is right. Essentially I think it is criminal to take the World Cup away from 144 million Russians who have as much right to view the spectacle on home soil as any other country. This debate is just because of the tyranny of a few, powerful oligarchs in Russia and economic sanctions should be the first priority, not the changing of venue.
Russia as World Cup 2018 hosts.

Soccer means a lot to me, and I also play it in North Carolina, USA, at a regional level. I follow the Carolina Railhawks regionally and Real Madrid internationally. I know the sport very well and will not give up a chance to play, but my team sometimes boycotts teams that are known for their bad habits in, a) cheating, b) racism, and c) foul language and bad sportsmanship. Russia displays many of these attributes and is not keeping up with FIFA standards. It is a wondrous thing that we are keeping Russia in the World Cup in the first place, and I will not stand for Russia being the hosts next year.
Russia as World Cup 2018 hosts.

I have also been had an avid interest in soccer my whole life. As a Brit, I follow Liverpool domestically and on the European stage. I would suggest that it is perhaps unreasonable for FIFA to relocate the World Cup. You state that "Soccer unites the world together and has the potential to deliver a message of peace and equality across the world." How can football have the opportunity to do this in Russia if the chance is taken away from them before it begins? If the Rugby World Cup had been taken away from South Africa in 1995 then the late Nelson Mandela would not have had the opportunity to unite South Africans nationwide. Also, as an individual who has played to county level in Ireland, I am acutely aware of the sense of patriotism and self accomplishment that would overcome Russian players when representing your country on home soil. By taking the World Cup away from Russia, you are also taking away the chance of a lifetime for the players who will be dreaming of representing Russia on home soil. The fans will want to see home grown idols playing together, united. Furthermore, if FIFA were to decide to change the location of the 2018 World Cup, it would have lasting ramifications. The 2014 World Cup scheduled for Brazil has been subject to corruption claims and rioting in Brazil has led to calls for a shift in venue. The most pressing case, however, presents itself in Qatar 2022. Qatar, as a Muslim country, is also anti-gay. Fans going there will be under scrutiny and will "feel threatened" when celebrating "this beautiful game that unites the world." This is without mentioning the 50 degree heat that supporters and players would be subject to if the event is staged in summer! Essentially, if FIFA change one World Cup location, the location of every future world cup will be staunchly contested by at least one country, taking the limelight away from the sport itself. The sport of Football is a pure entity that should not be blemished by off the field actions. Barcelona were recently found guilty tax evasion, whilst Bayern were guilty of the same offence. Although this tarnished the names of the respective institutions, the reputation of both on a football basis has not been questioned. Russia should be taken in the same mold. Although a tarnished government in western views, Russia as a footballing nation should not be punished. By all means take action against Russia economically and publicly critisise it. Do not, however, attack the institution of football on these political grounds.
Russia as World Cup 2018 hosts.

I have played soccer my entire life, and am a passionate supporter of the game on many levels -- from following U.S. soccer teams to the World Cup, soccer"s biggest event. Soccer unites the world together and has the potential to deliver a message of peace and equality across the world -- anyone can play it, anywhere, at anytime. Soccer as a sport has even been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize! So to put soccer"s pinnacle event in a nation like Russia, which is scheduled to host the 2018 World Cup, is a slap in the face to the sport. It"s time to urge FIFA to relocate the 2018 World Cup. Russia has not been a "team player" when it comes to supporting the human rights of those around the globe and those in their own homeland. They used the banner of the Olympics as a way to stage an invasion of sovereign Ukraine territory, despite widespread international criticism. Now, as Russian troops enter the Crimea, FIFA and World Cup President Sepp Blatter remain silent. Russia has also instituted anti-gay laws that directly discriminate against human beings, laws that state that imprisonment of up to three years can be given to any individual who "insults the feelings of religious believers" without specifying what that even means, have blatantly abused and underpaid migrant workers, and have killed 21 journalists intentionally for freely reporting the news. Is this really where the 2018 World Cup should be held? Already, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators have written FIFA urging them to relocate the World Cup from Russia. And soccer player Yaya Toure, the captain of Manchester City and the Ivory Coast, said that as a result of racial abuse he faced recently at a game in Moscow, he would boycott the tournament if things did not change in Russia. The World Cup is meant to be a celebration not just of the game, but the incredible diversity that exists around the planet. Whether black or white or gay or straight or however you identify, you should not feel threatened to celebrate yourself and this beautiful game that unites the world. But that clearly won"t be the case for millions if Russia is allowed to host the 2018 World Cup. Please join me in calling on FIFA to relocate the World Cup from Russia in 2018, and to send a message to Russia that there will be consequences for their recent actions.
Animal Abuse should be stopped

First off, I mispoked or in this case, miswrote about the " Object " thing... so I apologize. What I meant to write, was that Animals are inferior to Humans and therefore are not entitled to rights and protections under the law. The reasons which I have presented : Lack of Reasoning, Animals do not understand that they have rights.... and so many others shows that they are inferior to Humans and therefore do not deserve the same rights and protections as we do. Humans are not EQUAL to Animals, because we have a full understanding of our rights. So what does this mean ? It means that Animals are inferior to Humans and such are considered private property.... so the Owner can do what ever it wants. " Crimes of abuse and murder can start from abusing. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University says, "animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse". This so called evidence really does not prove anything. It's only a correlation, It doesn't really tells us anything and the fact that this came from a biased source really cheapens my opponent's argument. ........... Passing new regulations, destroys our Personal Liberty for it reduces Humans to that of an animal. So I am done.
Animal Abuse should be stopped

Objects- A material or thing that can be seen and touched but Not Living. Animals- a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialised sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. "My opponent has not shown why Animals are not Objects and are Equal to Humans." Well animals are not objects because they are LIVING. Humans are also considered animals. In this case, WE are equal to ANIMALS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crimes of abuse and murder can start from abusing. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University says, "animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse". Example Carroll Edward Cole was a West Coast serial killer who may have murdered as many as 35 women in the 1970s, and was executed in 1985. Based on Cole's testimony, his first violent act was strangling a puppy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If these crimes happen, isn't it better to stop Animal Cruelty?
Animal Abuse should be stopped

" We have the choice of eating either meat or vegetable. Tigers don't have a choice but to eat meat because they are carnivores. " Some People choose to become Vegetarians because Humans have the Higher Order Thinking Processes to make that decision for themselves. However, my opponent has shown no evidence that Animals possess the Higher Order Thinking Ability. So if Animals do not have the Ability to decide for themselves........ They therefore inferior to Humans, so they are considered Private Property. We can make the choice.......Animals can not. Another Example is this. Humans are the only Species on this Earth that can reason about their conceptions of right and wrong"that"s how we get the branch of philosophy called ethics. " BUT animals are not objects. You can abuse or damage an object that is your's and nobody would complain. But is it morally correct to hurt animals? " My opponent has not shown why Animals are not Objects and are Equal to Humans. These are vauge questions the opponent has thrown. My opponent has not rebutted my points I made up above. However, What I presented up above clrealy shows that Animals are not equal to Humans and therefore are not entitled to the Same Rights we have. Animals do not reason for themselves, Animals do not think of the Consequences that their Action just produced, Animals have not have made the leap from vocabulary to the sort of grammar and syntax that a small child intuitively knows and uses. Now there are some Animals such as the Dolphin who have displayed a great deal of intelligiance but Dolphins have not used that in a way that allows them to rebel............... So If humans didn't decide what was right or wrong, then nothing else would; that's what entitles humans to decide what's right and wrong so Animals can not decide for themselves what is wrong..... in fact, this entire debate rests on my opponent's assertion.....My opponent spoke for Animals, as a Human made the decision, not the animal. My opponent labled the Animals as Innocent. They did not labled themselves. " I'd say we draw the line at stopping owners abusing their own pets. We kill animals because it servers some kind of advantage to us. We kill animals to eat, maybe trying to stop disease going around. " How would my opponent go about doing this ? I have heard no concrete solutions to the Problem. If we were to pass a law, or something like that, than it would be infringing on OUR personal Liberty.................