BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GMOs' should be illegal in all food

GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. According to nongmoproject.org, GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food.A growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights. Most countries do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than sixty countries, including Australia, Japan and all European countries, there are restrictions or bans on the production and sale of GMOs. But in the U.S, the government approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit greatly from it. According to labelgmos.org, sixty four countries already label genetically engineered foods. Excluding the U.S.The same companies that fight GMO labeling in the US reformulate or label GMOs in the foods they sell overseas. But by law, the use of genetically engineering is prohibited for products defined as 'organic'.In gmo-compass.org, the newly extended EU directive for labelling genetically modified foods has been in effect since April 2004. However - contrary to expectations - very little has changed throughout most of Europe. Labelling requirements were broadened significantly, but consumers nonetheless rarely find labels indicating the use of genetic engineering.Anyone who places labels on their GM products risks losses in sales and damage to their image. In order to avoid this, many producers have changed the composition of their products: rapeseed oil (canola oil) may be used instead of soybean oil for producing margarine – soy lecithin may be replaced by chemical emulsifiers. Other producers pay a premium for soy with a written guarantee that GM content does not exceed the 0.9 percent threshold, thus allowing the producer to use soy and forgo the GM label. In conclusion, I believe that GMOs should be illegal, as it is in many nations, not only does it benefit the large companies that produce this, but it puts chemicals in everyday food that we consume.
GMOs' should be illegal in all food

U.S. consumers inaccurate believe that, unless the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) had approved every GMO food through hard and well designed, long-term studies, GM food ingredients would not be allowed in our food supply. But the reality of it is that the FDA has no GMO safety testing requirements, and GM ingredients are found in almost all foods in the shelves of most grocery shops. No agency oversees or tests GMOs, and because of this, the “research” that supports GMO safety is not mandated by any agencies or US government, and the information that may be given is done so in a voluntary basis by the very companies that produce their own GM crops and foods, which has been described by critics as “meticulously designed to avoid finding problems”.What is most astonishing is the 44,000 FDA documents were only made public as a result of a lawsuit revealing problems with GMOs, and the engulfing consensus among the FDA's scientists was that GM foods were "substantively different", so divergent that their consumption might ramificate in unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. Agency scientists urged superiors to require long-term studies, but were not only ignored, their statements about possible negative effects of GMOs were progressively deleted from FDA policy statement drafts. What the production of GMO crops and foods points to is a product that has zero accountability, zero safety testing by the very agencies that are supposed to keep the public from harm, and the immeasurable unintended negative consequences that GMO possess. Except for organic foods, the entire American food supply has been systematically hijacked by chemical companies, not bent on trying to feed the world; not providing healthy alternatives, but rather for profits that they reap from the chemicals that are used by thousands of farmers that grow GMO crops. Yes, Monsanto probably one of the most "evil" corporation in our planet, but have you ever stopped to wonder why?The answer to this question is found in probing the virtue of the corporation in question. As virtuous people, we expect corporations to act with a sense of fundamental human decency. We expect them to behave within the boundaries of respecting human life, honest business practices and reliable science. We (naively) wish that corporations would act like decent human beings.But they simply do not. What they care most about is getting a better pay check. In order to get a decent profit, the violate the basic tenets of virtue. They betray humanity in itself and destroy life. They malign Mother Nature herself, and in doing so, they threaten the very future of sustainable life on our planet. Monsanto is spending millions of dollars in trying to defeat Proposition 37 ( in California) which is a bill that states that GMOs need to be labeled in the food labels. This indicated that Monsanto and other companies do not want us to know the truth about GMOs in the foods that we buy and eat. http://naturalrevolution.org...http://www.naturalnews.com...#
Puerto Rican Day "Seinfeld" episode was banned for being anti-white (revised)

The majority of people who protested the episode were also of Germanic descent in general (Nords). In fact, as I mentioned below it was not even someone of Spanish descent but a Brit who tried to get the episode canned. I should note that "Friends" which has many mean jokes about Brits, Italians, and some carciature-like portrayals of Italians and blacks as well is not banned.
Puerto Rican Day "Seinfeld" episode was banned for being anti-white (revised)

I dont think this topic is importantI respectfully disagree. This banning is just a disturbing pattern in what I think is a move to a more Stalinist-type, KKK type of state again.Important stuff: Upon reviewing my last debate on this very same issue, I realized I left a common bit of important info that could have put me in the right direction of a victory: that Puerto Ricans are popularly considered colored (as in non-white). Before I get into the argument: here's a rundown. In response to what I put above. Unlike other historically repressed ethnic groups, like Italians, Irish, Greeks, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, blacks, Hispanics are not always non-white. In fact, in Spain itself, in the Middle Ages, a Nordic group called the Visigoths conquered the Spanish peninsula, thus giving us many Visigothic surnames we know today like Rodriguez, Cruz, Sanchez, Martinez, Guiterrez, Gomez, Gonzalez, Cortez, Guzman, etc.https://en.wikipedia.org... Now you may say that Latin America is non-white, so it doesn't matter what surname they have. Except, Puerto Rico is actually the whitest country in Latin America, tied with Mexico, and after Argentina.https://en.wikipedia.org...According to this: Puerto Ricans, as of 2010, make up 75.8 percent of the population.Also, there is intense hatred by the Visigothic population against the non-Visigothic Spanish (which is why many Puerto Ricans with surnames like Garcia, Rivera, Santiago, Aviles, etc, have fled to the USA themselves to escape such the lynchings, beatings and discrimination).In Puerto Rico, the episode is banned.That being said, why is this important? It's because the episode was not anti-minority, as some would, according to what I referenced above, would confuse it as anti-colored. The episode was banned for being "anti-white," supposedly. http://www.youtube.com...As you can see the characters wanting to hurt Kramer are whiter than he is. Also, the majority of Puerto Ricans who protested the episode were of those Visigothic surnames (in fact in a 1998 NBC 4 report, most of the protesters look Nordic -- with small eyes and thin or no lips). No Garcia, Rivera, or Aviles, for instance, protested this episode. The man who petitioned for the episode to be banned was not even Spanish but of British ancestry. Manuel Mirabal.http://www.nytimes.com...https://www.houseofnames.com...According to here, Mirabal is a Saxon surname that survived the Normans in 1066.
Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi

When I said Coke gives you more of a kick, I meant from the Carbonation. Caffeine doesn't effect me much either. I like how Coca-Cola is fairly sweet, and has the kick to go with it. I still think Pepsi is a little sweeter but, it doesn't give as much of that kick. Many people like the sweet over the CO2 though, as well as many others like the carbonation. I do agree though, the voters should vote off their own opinion because people don't all have the same taste buds. In turn, I should not have made this argument four rounds.
Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi

Pepsi in my opinion is better than Coca-Cola. The kick in the drinks is based off of a body's way of metabolising what's put in to it. Caffeine probably effects your better than it does me. I can drink a can of Monster Energy and be out like a light taking a nap in a minute. So obviously, the kick part depends on the person. How about taste? Again, opinion, but on average, a person can tell the difference between the two drinks. I think this would be done better if we polled the audience. I think the audience should put their opinion in the comments, and we look from there.
Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi

This argument can be based off your opinion, and the facts of course. For a long time I always thought Coke, and Pepsi both tasted the same. Even then though, I realized one did rise above the other. Although Pepsi is sweeter, Coke gives you more of a kick. (No cocaine jokes please). I think this kick overrules the sweetness of Pepsi. Different people like different things though, so give me your favorite.
Dwarf Tossing Should be Banned

My opponent argues that banning dwarf tossing should be illegal because most little people are against it, but that misses the fact that many little people are for it, and would love to be tossed themselves. It's also a logical fallacy to say an argument is correct because most people are for it. We all know that public opinion can change in a whim. Whether something is right or wrong is independent of whether it is a popular ideal or not. It's also a bare assertion by my opponent who provided no polls at data to support his position. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... My opponent argues that it is an affront to the dignity of little people to be tossed, but the little people being tossed, don't mind, and in fact many love it. I could argue that stripping, getting a tattoo, and listening to Nickelback is an affront to human dignity, but we don't ban things because of this. Liberty demands we give people the freedom to do things we disagree with as long as it hurts nobody.
Dwarf Tossing Should be Banned

Many places in the world have righty banned dwarf tossing. Such bans are a protection to human decency of dwarfs. The U.N. While debating the ban of this grotesque act concludes this... "That the ban on dwarf tossing as practised by the author... was necessary in order to protect public order, which brings into play considerations of human dignity" A majority of dwarfs are in favor of such a ban. "The year was 1989, and the world's only support group for the vertically-challenged - The Little People Of America (click here for their website) - went to Florida and convinced the lawmakers there that this strange sport is infact cruel and should be stopped. The measure banning dwarf-tossing was passed with a wide margin, and dwarf-tossing was outlawed in both Florida and New York." Dwarf tossing is dehumanizing and an affront to human decency. It should therefore be banned. http://docstore.ohchr.org... http://twistededge.org...
Dwarf Tossing Should be Banned

I had sex with a little person before. The point is, they are just like me or you. Little people should have equal rights under the law, and if one decides they want to be tossed, they should be allowed. The banning of dwarf tossing is simply a case where the government is being prejudiced against little people and deciding for them, what they should and should not be able to do. The are being bigoted by saying that little people are inferior to everyone else and should not be allowed to do the same thing stuntman, boxers and MMA fighters do. Which is to make calculated decisions as to what risks, they wish to take with their bodies, and let's be honest. Being tossed is less dangerous than getting into a ring with a professional fighter, but people want one of these things legal and the other not. The only reason for allowing one and not the other is hate of little people. http://m.huffpost.com...
Dwarf Tossing Should be Banned

12 hour time limit. 1,000 character limit. Do not accept if you do not have the time or willingness to see this debate through. Full Resolution: Dwarf Tossing Should be Banned Definitions: Dwarf Tossing: "is a pub/bar attraction in which dwarfs wearing special padded clothing or Velcro costumes are thrown onto mattresses or at Velcro-coated walls. Participants compete to throw the dwarf the farthest. " The definition is obviously meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
RESOLVED: Television has had more positive effects than negative

Widespread news coveragePrior to widespread television ownership, common methods of learning about the day to day happenings around the globe, in the country, or in one's community were mostly restricted to news print media or radio. As with traditional news print, which are generally not published more than once a day, news was slow to circulate. Now, since there are news source that operate throughout most of the day(CNN, Fox News, etc.) people are given access to breaking news within hours or even minutes of the event happening. Contrast this with not getting the information until the next day at the earliest and the difference is clear.Emergencies and natural disastersDuring emergencies, from the international down to the local, people are now given minute by minute information as to the status of the emergency. When radio was the fastest means of receiving news, vocal description was all that one could rely on to guage the severity of a situation while now, as with television media where news organizations often send field reporters in to help audiences visualize the situaion, the viewer is given much more descriptive and possibly useful information.Television and educationTelevision has also allowed for a larger educational market. For instance, there are television stations such as the Discovery and History channels that are devoted almost exclusively to educational programming. Programing of this nature ranges from analysis of the American Civil War to the different cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa. Television media is making it more and more possible for an average person with minimal forma eductional experience to become knowledgable in areas such as history, physics, zoology, sociology, etc. Children and educationBesides educational channels aimed mostly at adults, there is a large market for infant and toddler education in television. Channels such as PBS and Noggin(now NickJr.) offer a large amount of child friendly programming specifically designed to help teach infants and toddlers verbal and social skills, reading skills, and general social lessons. Children can now be exposed to basic educational lessons normally not available until kindergarden or pre-school.==Conclusion==In the interest of making this debate readable to viewers and not argument spamming my opponent, I will limit my first round to these arguments. So in conclusion, television allows faster accounts of news on international, national, and local levels whereas, making it much more flexible than traditional print media. It also provides a very large amount of educational material for younger children not yet enrolled in school and for curious adults without higher levels of formal education. I await my opponent's response.
RESOLVED: Television has had more positive effects than negative

This is for Tier 1 in DetectableNinja's debate tourney, Gold Division.Rules/Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.DefinitionsTelevision- a telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images that can be monochrome (black-and-white) or colored, with accompanying sound.[1]Positive effects- Include but are not necessarily limited to societal welfare, economic prosperity, increased education, etc. Negative effects- I will leave the definition of this up to my opponent as the negative effects of television will be part of his case.I wish my esteemed opponent Raisor the best of luck in this debate and look forward to an interesting clash of ideas.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God exists

I thank you for a considered response, I will now address your attempts at refutations. You cite quantum fluctuation as evidence of non-contingent matter. However, quantum fluctuation is contingent on the existence of the universe; to disagree would be to suggest that quantum fluctuations take place outside the universe. This is absurd as quantum fluctuations involve matter, which by definition cannot exist outside the universe. Argument 1 would be invalid if a physical thing was found to be non-contingent, yet none has been highlighted so far so the argument stands. To counter argument 2, you postulate about virtual particles. However it is debatable as to whether they actually exist. But for the sake of this argument I will be generous and assume that they are. The crucial thing is that virtual particles DO have a cause for their existence. Firstly, they can only occur when either in an electric or magnetic field (hence the presence of a field being a cause for virtual particles). Secondly, they are caused by other particles that do exist (1). To summarise, argument 2 is not refuted because the example that you present is not causeless. You make a good rebuttal to argument 3, although I do not believe it falsifies it altogether. This is because the cosmological evidence heavily suggests that all the fundamental particles, laws and mechanics of the universe WERE created in a single attempt (at the Big Bang). These laws are constant and have been constant throughout the universe's history which avoids your point that any improbable thing can be possible if repeated enough; the evidence suggests that they were not repeated many times. Your rebuttal would only apply if there is a multiverse and ours was the one out of billions that are stable. However, multiverse theories have no scientific evidence and are little more than speculation. It certainly isn't a more sensible explanation than a transcendent creator. In regards to your attempted rebuttal of argument 4, you seem to have misunderstood the argument. You seem to think that I am begging the question by taking the false axiom (in the context of this debate) that God exists. I am not doing this, the only premise I am taking is that God is defined as a perfect being. This is in no way assuming that he exists, otherwise atheists would not accept this definition (although they do). However this definition can be used to prove that God exists, because a perfect being must necessarily be perfect in all aspects. Existence is an aspect so a perfect being must have perfect existence. Perfect existence = existence in reality. Therefore, by definition, a perfect being must exist. It cannot not exist. (1)http://profmattstrassler.com...
God exists

Argument 1 'Every physical thing in the universe we observe to be contingent;' 'Contingent: existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on' Quantum fluctuation? What does quantum fluctuation depend on and what circumstances must be the case for it to exist? Explain or I will have to reject your first argument. Argument 2 'Everything that comes into being requires a cause for doing so' Again, except quantum physics. What is the cause for virtual particles? This is basically same argument. Argument 3 'the higher the complexity of an object the lower the probability of it occurring simply by chance.' yes, and the larger the universe is, the higher the possibility of such events taking place. Example: quantum tunneling. Chance of individual particle to get through a barrier is close to zero, but since there are so many particles in the sun, it happens every second. Whole your argument is based on assumption that only one single attempt is being made, which is wrong. Argument 4 'God can be defined as "that which nothing greater can be conceived" Ok, fair enough. 'God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only exists in my mind' ...thats only if you already assume that there is a god who exists in reality and that such god fits with your definition of it. This does not suggest that god actually exists. God that exists in your mind might be the only god out there. 'Therefore God must exist in reality otherwise he wouldn't be "that which nothing greater can be conceived". God must exist in reality because you defined it as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived? Like I said, you are, from the very start, assuming that god exists. You are supposed to provide arguments which lead to such conclusion. You, on other hand, are basically saying 'if god exists then he exists'. All your arguments come out of assumption that god already exists, while ignoring that this is exactly what needs to be proven, not asserted.