BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spanking/Smacking children is more beneficial than harmful.

I accept. Before we proceed to the debate, I must clarify a few things, begining with the defining of terms.Spank (v): to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks. [1]Smack (v): to strike sharply, especially with the open hand or a flat object. [2]Is (v): to be. [3]Beneficial (adj): conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful [4]Harmful (adj): causing or capable of causing harm; injurious: a harmful idea; a harmful habit. [5]Pro's resolution: "Spanking/smacking children FOR disciplinary reasons is more beneficial to them than it is harmful." *The term "is" is absolute and unchanging. Therefore, due to the nature of the word "is", Pro is implying and suggesting that smacking children for disciplinary reasons is ALWAYS more beneficial to them than it is harmful. *Therefore, my job in this debate is to argue that it is either equally beneficial than it is harmful or that it is less beneficial to them than it is harmful.Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...4. http://dictionary.reference.com...5. http://dictionary.reference.com...Over to Pro.
Spanking/Smacking children is more beneficial than harmful.

lol. The debate was already over since you conceded, which was 2 rounds ago. Therefore I am no longer obligated to stick to the debate. Besides, it does hold some relevance because your sister has gotten spanked before. And I deduced that because you told me about how your mom has spanked you when you were a kid, so it is likely your twinsister has also recieved spanking at least once. But if you want to play like that, fine. I ask voters to consider Pro's poor conduct by posting irrelevant pictures. Furthermore, unlike me, your irrelevance was integrated DURING the debate and not after. I have stated in my argument in round 2 that your images are invalid, and you conceded.
Adolph Hitler was morally justified in all that he did.

Morals are relative, and by my morals he was not justified. And since most of the world is in agreement that Hitler was immoral, then I win by majority count. And if you feel that majority rule isn't always the moral rule, then I say that morals are relative, and there's strength in numbers. I see that there is only one round here, but if you or anyone else would like to debate about Hitler beyond "morals are relative", then I'm up for it.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

My opponent is denying the fact that GMO's can solve the worlds food problems. However,it is a proven fact that GMOs will solve the problem of world hunger. Also,my opponent has previously stated things about the side effects that GMOs can cause. However, GNOs are genetically modified in order to cause as little problems and we, similarly to natural selection will go through trial and error as well. And I state once again that GMOs can solve many problems.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Each "natural" genetic modification in the natural selection went through 10000's of years of trial and error. It resulted in different species being born, and some species being extinct. When you genetically modify food, it might take a long time before you see what kind of changes this implies in the nature. You might make some species extinct, and, make some new ones (that otherwise wouldn't be there) come to existence. GM food might seem to be answering the "available food quantity" question in the short term, but, is it fast-forwarding certain other genetic evolutions, or, abruptly terminating them ? What is the long term effect of this in the nature ? Can these effects be researched with a $300M research budget ? considering that it took the nature million+ years to answer them in some cases ? I would also like to give my views about world hunger. There is no such thing.There is enough food produced nowadays to reduce hunger to minimum. Moreover, there is enough food being wasted every year in developed countries to fulfill the needs of the poor. These are the widely available facts. There are economical factors (and some environmental such as scarcity of water) that are behind this injustice: part of the world eating at fast-foods and not giving a damn about another ton of wasted burgers whereas somewhere else there is no access to safe drinking water, no environmental policies, no food and diarrhea taking lives of thousand of children. GM food was found in developed countries by multinational corporactions and was implemented in order to meet the needs of rich not in order to solve the problems of poor (how could they pay for such help?). If otherwise, give me an example of a country where GM is solving any hunger problems! Do you really believe that bussines wants to solve a problem of poor and hunger? Then where you gonna get your cheap coffee or chocolate from?
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Before going into my main argument, I will like to state this. I agree that GMOs are far from being natural. But, if you think of it another way, almost everything that we are enjoying in our lives are far from being natural. Are cell phones natural? Are skyscrapers natural? Are weapons natural? Then, why will we, humanity, do these things if they are far from natural? It's because of the solid fact that in order to improve from your current state, you must do unnatural things. If the prehistoric human who first used fire was reluctant of being unnatural, will humanity have survived the ice age? In order to develop, we have to do this things. Now for my main arguments. We are in a world of mass production. In order to keep up, we need to produce more of everything. Well, like my fellow debater said, GMOs may be made for money as well, but, it helps keep up with the demand for more food. GMOs are needed to keep produce food as we eat now with a limited area of space and an ever increasing demand for food.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

As one can see all the advantages of G.M.O's are repetitive, reducing world hunger. What is the primary reason for world hunger ? Increasing cost of food. And my fellow debator is saying that GMO's can reduce world hunger. But how is that possible with the ever increasing cost of such crops. How can a person who earns 3-4 dollars per day expect to buy rice which is to be sold at much higher prices . It is highly improbable . Its cost of production it too high to be sold at any lower cost. The companies will not be willing to sell it at a lower cost. The GMO process is all about making money " creating a product that can appeal to the masses, preserve well, grow efficiently, and sell " no two ways about it. Scientists, big food corporations (and farmers alike) are trying to create strains that can withstand what normal foods and plants can"t; these traits include, chemical tolerances, pesticide resistance, heightened nutritional content, and the tolerance of extreme environments. All of it sounds good (in a sense), but the processes involved with genetically altering food is far from being natural. The GMO goal here is simple " to make a product that can endure the impossible and make the most money. These procedures literally go against the natural code of food, and that"s never really a good thing. MOTHER EARTH IS NOT HAPPY!
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Well, some GMOs may have poisonous qualities. However, will they be allowed for common use for humans if tests show mutated mice, and negative results like that? No they won't. The GMO's are quite more strictly tested, than what you mentioned above. What will be the reason for this? So that GMOs don't become poisons as my contender seems to believe. On the other hand, GMOs have a lot more pros to them. For example, we can put more nutrition into GMO foods. For example, if a person eats only one kind of food, such as rice as his/her staple food, they will most likely get malnutrition since rice does not contain all the necessary nutrients needed for life. However, with GMOs we can pack the crop with all the necessary nutrients and lessen the percentage of malnutrition around the world. Also, according to http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu..., It mentions about... "The genetic engineering of plants has the potential to provide edible plant vaccines that could be used to immunize individuals against a wide variety of infectious diseases ranging from cholera to potentially AIDS." By this, we can see that GMOs contribute to our health, also, it can protect the environment.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Just because Monsanto puts herbicide INTO the DNA of plants to prevent pests from ruining their crops, as well as SPRAYING these pseudo crops (they aren't food as nature intended) with even more pesticides, then sure, no repercussions, right. You have got it wrong. It's already been PROVEN that gmo-fed sheep, pigs, have had higher rates of miscarriages, intestinal problems, and death amongst those who have ingested these poisons. Are our gastrointestinal tracts all that different? Are we so invincible to poisons? It also has been proven that lab mice, fed these gmo "foods" have had mutations in their litters, even with second generation mice doing weird things like having hair growth IN THEIR MOUTHS. Would you like to wake up to THAT or other nightmares like these? GMOs are POISONS and were only allowed to exist because supreme court judge clarence thomas (a former monsanto attorney, by the way) pushed to OK the patenting of dna. So, there goes the green light for monsanto to experiment on life to poison other life. Are you still thinking gmos are a good idea? Humans have rarely ever IF EVER, come up with anything better than nature offers us. If anything, the hand of humans have messed up quite a lot. LET'S GET OFF THIS DOWNWARD SPIRAL, FOLKS. Grown your own (and hope the chemical trail planes don't poison your land and DEMAND THE LABELING OF GMOs in FOODS. I think Monsanto and the other big companies messing with millions of years of evolution are just playing God, which has never worked well for anyone. Besides, the use of GMOs hasn't reduced the amount of fertilizer and pesticides we use at all. And even if these modified plants were better, isn't it just begging for a massive bioterrorist attack? We need to think long term. Mass-produced soybeans might be good for feeding us now, but it is depleting the soil. And corn to feed livestock is great for cheap meat, but it is causing terrible health problems, in people and the animals. As a closing thought, there is a GM type of salmon that can eat corn. How would a wild salmon ever get corn to eat? Can anything that different from what nature intended really be good for us?
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Well, I will have to go against your points about 'no proper tests', since according to http://www.gmo-compass.org..., It states that "According to laws that apply to all EU member states, a GM food can only be allowed onto the market if it can be documented using scientific data that it is just as safe and healthy as a comparable conventional product." There are many such tests to ensure the safety of these foods, such as feeding tests, chemical analysis, etc. Also, I want to refute your points about the poisonous effects of GMO products to insects. With GMO killing insects who eat them, we can reduce our use of pesticides, thus further protecting the environment. Also, with GMOs we can reduce the use of land that is used for agriculture, since the crops will produce larger amounts of food per acre. We can also use salty lands to grow crops, by using crops that can grow on salty land.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

There is world hunger. I accept that fact. But is GMO the answer for it ? I don't believe so. It is better to be safe than sorry. The reason is simple . We are the lab rats for such a product. It is risky buisness, especially if it is intended for eradicating "World Hunger" . If we start using this product blindly with no proper tests, we just might end up creating mutated humans and kiss our civilization good bye. Unless and untill proper experiments prove the products safety i say we should not try it. Once a gene is mutated, there is no going back. If we trust it without proper verification and on a later date we realize it had a flaw there won't be anything that we would be able to do. We will lose healthy varieties of crops just because we were too rash. Countries collapse if someone takes a rash decision. In the same way we could be actually our whole mankind just in order to prove that GMO are good.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Well, as my previous speaker has already explained what GMOs are, I will not repeat the description, but will go straight into my main points. With the population rising, the need for more food is happening. Already, many people are suffering from hunger. However, by utilizing GMOs, we can increase the productions of food , thus solving starvation and famine. Imagine that we send a crop that has potato's on it's roots, and tomato's as it's fruit to well, maybe Kenya. With this crop, the food production in the area will double, giving people more food to eat. The GMO's main disadvantages are, that we don't know if there is a side effect or something of that sort. But, if humanity didn't try anything just because they were afraid of the side effects, will the world be as it is now? For example, if humanity didn't use medicine because they weren't sure of the side effects, will we live as well as we do now? We can supply a larger population with these crops. The population will probably continue to rise for some time, according to studies, and if we don't want mass deaths to happen due to hunger, we should adopt GMOs and make use of the fruits of science.
Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.

Before I go more in depth about the cons of genetically modified crops, let me first give a definition of what genetically modified crops are. Genetically modified crops (often abbreviated as GMOs) are simply crops, whose genetical material has been modified. There are two ways to do this: Traditional selection and breeding (much like breeding animals), Modern, scientific modification of the crops. In this article, my strengths and weaknesses of genetically modified crops list will deal with the second, the scientific effects and applications. As the scope of this article is not to describe the detailed process of how GMOs are modified, I will just very briefly describe it. First and foremost the genetic material of the two or more crops whose genetic property or properties will be mixed has to be fully mapped. The phrase "genetic mapping" means to have a full and exhaustive recorded knowledge of the genes, and the sequence of genes of the genetically mapped organism(s). When each of the genes (and their functions) of the particular crops have been identified, they are then separated in a science lab. These genes are then cloned and injected into the sequence of genes embryonic form (sometimes to stem cells) of the recipient crop. Finally the seed of the modified crop is planted and grown in greenhouses through traditional methods. Now To The Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Crops: 1)Harm to other organisms. For example genes and their effect included in a crop may turn out to be poisonous to insects (monarch butterfly poisoned by GMO corns). 2) Cross-pollination with traditional, organic plants. Cross pollination can occur at quite large distances. New genes may also be included in the offspring of the traditional, organic crops miles away. This makes it difficult to distinguish which crop field is organic, and which is not, posing a problem to the proper labeling of non-GMO food products. 3)The safety of such products is not verified yet, in fact, we are the lab rats to test the safety of such technology.
Hollywood Undead Music Battle

In order to win this debate you must post better Hollywood Undead songs then the opponet.Rules1 song per round,post songs name,No cussing (except for the songs),No FFs, andDon't post a song that was already posted.If any of these rules of violated all 7 points go to the opponet, Lights Out- Hollywood Undeadhttp://www.youtube.com...
The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr

With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.SOURCE: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...;
Competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence

You and I both agree on something: A co-operating team can compete far better than an individual alone.Here is where we disagree: If that team is not competing they will be superior in achieving excellence.This is simply not the case.Without competition the individuals comprising the team will lose any feeling of bonding. The only thing holding a team together is the hatred of opposition. If this isn't present then the team won't gel and if they do happen to co-operate, they will have no standard, no baseline of excellence to strive to achieve.You provided zero support of your claim that a one-party nation's government is more effective than a competitive democracy in which one party is voted every few years.Let's see... Soviet Russia was one-party, so is most of Middle East, Nazi Germany and all dictatorships of history. What do they all have in common? They slowly failed over time. From this our competitive democracies arose and have so at a very healthy pace.Competitions undeniably superior to co-operation as a means of achieving excellence because without it, there is not standard for the co-operating team to judge what excellence is.
Competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence

At my school, two teachers, (Social Studies and Math) join together to create a project for the election. Rather than both teachers creating one each to compete against each other, us (the students) won because essentially we achieved intellectual excellence. "Another example I have is our government, currently we aren't achieving anything because there is competition between both parties and instead of driving them to excellence, it"s driving them to mediocrity! "These are just some example on many different circumstances. So, tell me this would the election project be more beneficial to us students and the teachers if we didn't have one project? What about our government? Do you think that adding more competition is going to help us achieve excellence?
Competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence

If two people want the same thing, forcing them to outdo the other will constantly produce a cycle of excellence because the moment one gets better the other will strive to outdo them. If they worked together they'd produce a double-whammy of low quality outcome since there simply is no motivation to succeed.HOWEVER, co-operation combined with competition is undoubtedly going to produce excellence because two heads are indeed better than one. Nonetheless, without competition co-operation is all but futile in achieving excellence.
Competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence

"Today and every day, communities join together in cooperation to help each other and essentially achieve excellence. "Let"s take a look at some definitions shall we, "Competition: "to compete" "> "strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same." New Oxford American "Cooperation: "working together for a common purpose; activity shared for mutual benefit." Dictionary.com, Random House "Now for the definition of competition, do you think it adequately shows excellence? By defeating someone? How about cooperation, activity SHARED for mutual benefit "Point 2: "Competition is more important to individuals with bigger egos, who"s only fulfillment of excellence is competition "Rather, individuals who can skillfully work together with others enjoy excellence knowing that not only have they achieved excellence, but others have too. "For example, in the real world after high school, life becomes more about achieving academic goals then beating your friend in a soccer game to prove you"re superior. "I think you understand that to achieve true and meaningful excellence you can use your peers or teammates to drive you.
Competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence

Even though you propose that I am unsure what I am talking about, I know from experience. On a swim team, swimmers compete against each other individually AND cooperatively. In my specific experience, I received a best time while I was competing in a relay. The reason I did better here was because I not only was driving myself to excellence, I was doing it for others. This is known as a healthy drive. I am simply saying that competition is not better and cooperation is not better, rather they are equal.
animals should not be killed for any reason

And thank you for your argument con, the reason I am brining this up is because of how the animals are brought up, treated and then killed. I don't think it would be very pleasant to get shot in the head and then hung upside down to let the blood flow to you head so u get concussion, then your mouth is blocked so u can't BREATHE by someone stepping on it....I don't think any of us would want anything like that happening to us, so why should it to them, when they are innocent, not every human is bad, but animals are fairly, surely innocent, I assume? They aren't going to go and rob a bank, or kill a person cause they feel like it. Because they don't have a voice and can't express their feelings. But I know they to have feelings, feel pain, have families and just to casually want to live their life, without anyone coming and interrupting. We have a enough idiots in the world as it is!
animals should not be killed for any reason

I think animals SHOULD NOT be killed for ANY reason at all! Animals have a right to live because they are innocent creatures. We want to live our life and so do they, so why are we aloud to kill animals in a inhumane way and not get punished, but if a child gets hit by a car, it's all over the news, and families are having sad ceremonies because of their loss. But on the other side of the world, mother pigs are getting stacked onto a truck, getting ready to be traveled for 72 hours in the hot weather, no air leaving their young behind and not getting time to look after them. What happens to those piglets, they end up as fresh bacon on your plate. What happens to them in the process of making bacon to fill selfish humans belly, I'm not gong to go there. If someone is sad because a child has died and they mourn because that child didn't have a chance to live life, But then they don't realise that that is exactly the SAME thing in animal matter? why do we value human lives over animals so much? What makes us so special, especially since we are the ones who are ruining our earth for everyone and everything else.