BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetically Modified Organisms

The latest statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) say that "there are 842 million hungry people in the world and 98 percent of them are in developing countries." There are many reasons that this happens, including war, poverty, and weather. Many people do not have clean water for themselves so it is even harder to grow crops. The FAO suggests that, "Investing in agriculture is one of the most effective strategies for reducing poverty and hunger and promoting sustainability." Many GMOs have the ability to survive in harsh conditions such as this. For example, scientists will be able to modify plants so that they can survive things like the harsh African summer. This could greatly help the fight against world hunger. Many countries are debating whether or not to allow GMOs. In many developing countries, families rely on their own gardens at least some of the time; this makes it even more important to have a successful harvest. On average, Ugandans eat about a pound of fruit a day. Most people in Uganda actually have a banana tree in their backyard. But recently a bacteria has been effecting those trees. Harvests have gone down by as much as 30 percent. But according to an article on NPR.org, Uganda's National Agricultural Research Organization, has produced a genetically modified banana that can stand up to the bacteria. The Ugandan government has realized how helpful GMOs can be and is in the process of passing a bill allowing genetically modified organisms.
Genetically Modified Organisms

How would you feel if one of your loved ones got severely sick because they ate a plant or animal that had been genetically modified? This could happen one day in the future if we keep growing genetically engineered crops. Genetically engineered organisms (GMO) are organisms that have been injected with chemicals. These chemicals change the DNA of the organism. This causes the organisms to do things that nature did not intend for them to do. This issue is very important because according to an article on the issues and controversies website, it is estimated that in the USA 70% of all the processed food in supermarkets contains GMO. In the future GMO could make certain foods better for us but this does not outweigh the risks. I strongly believe that genetically modified organisms should not be allowed.
Genetically Modified Organisms

If you could give a child food that would potentially save their lives, would you? According to UNICEF 1.5 million children die every year because of vitamin A deficiency. Geneticists have developed a rice that contains more vitamin A than the average grain. This rice is a genetically modified organism. Genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) are organisms that have had their DNA changed in some way. This is often used for producing new traits in plants-like the ability to grow without much water-and is greatly helpful in our ever changing world. Many people believe food which has been genetically modified is unsafe to eat. This has been proven wrong by scientific studies. I Therefore strongly believe that we should continue using genetically modified organisms.
Genetically Modified Organisms

Over the course of this argument we have seen the many cons of GMO organisms. They are bound to and already have caused health problems and threaten the environment. I have also showed that the path to GMO foods being allowed in america is shady. Some experts believe that a GMO company spent lots of money lobbying the government in their favor. My opponent believes that GMO foods would end world hunger. This is wrong. Most countries that would need these crops are extremely poor. How would they have enough money to pay for the food? This also applies to her thoughts on climate change as well. Many countries are highly against GMO organisms. Why aren't we? Lobbying and false ideals have shaped this countries opinion on GMO foods. Listen to the facts. GMO foods are highly dangerous.
Genetically Modified Organisms

All of the examples in your second argument are hypothetical scenarios. None of these things have actually happened. I again want to draw your attention to the collection of studies reviewed by a team of scientists. Out of all 1783 studies about genetically modified organisms, they could not find a single credible example of GMOs causing harm. "Genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history", according to an article on Forbes.com. "There is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public"s health. The reason for the public"s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates." I stand by my points for keeping GMOs. Developing countries can be greatly helped by GM crops, providing food that can stand up to bacteria and other threats. They can also provide the U.S. with ways to quickly adapt plants to any conditions that threaten our crops. With all of this evidence, I conclude my argument hoping that you can see how much genetically modified organisms can help us. Thank you.
Resolved: The US Federal Government ought to Implement a Ban on Smoking

Resolved: The US Federal Government ought to Implement a Ban on SmokingIn order to determine what the US Federal Government ought to do, we must first determine what the role of government in society ought to be. In the United States, the purpose of the government is found within the preamble of the U. S. Constitution. While some may view parts of the Constitution as arcane or dated, the preamble seems to clearly articulate the role proper role of Government. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”With this basic understanding of the purpose of government, two of the purposes listed above seem to pertain to the topic at hand. They are namely, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. Moreover, there is a clear and effective way that governments can succeed in both duties. This is done through the Harm Principle. John Stuart Mill, whose likeness is my avatar here on DDO, is often attributed with what is known as the harm principle. This principle holds that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. " (1) Cigarette smoking is responsible for one out of every five deaths in the U. S. annually. Understand that this harm is not only self-inflicted as 41,000 deaths annually are the result of secondhand smoking. Consequently, it has been found that if the current rate continues “5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. (2) Furthermore, it has been found that significant harm is done to those who live, or work, with people who smoke. (3) Accordingly, it has been found that smoking bans lower if not remove the harms of smoking. Perhaps this is why The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans. (3) ConclusionIn this round I have claimed that cigarette smoking causes significant harm to the general welfare of the United States. This is warranted by the CDC which shows 1 in 5 deaths in the US are the result of smoking. By applying the harm principle we see it reasonable to restrict the personal liberty to smoke by implement a smoking ban. The impact of a smoking ban provides solvency as it reduces and potentially removes the harm of smoking, thus allowing the government to fill one of its primary functions to promote the general welfare. Vote Pro! Sources(1) . http://www.bartleby.com...(2) . http://www.cdc.gov...(3) . http://www.debate.org...
ISLAM vs any thing1

http://en.wikipedia.org... the above link, prove a long history of stealing what was rightfully ours. All the scientific discoveries i have mention above are also in Qur'an which proves a lot of things. As the Qur'an was revealed 1400 years ago but these discoveries are 2 or 3 centuries earlier. Which means these things are also stolen from Qur'an. For the hypothesis there must be observation. For that you need some thing within your reach to observe (universe). Indeed all other discoveries was sudden accident(antibiotic, urea etc) which were not in Qur'an. Other wise all those which could not be identifiable from accident are identified from the Qur'an. At least Qur'an might have given them direction. Also the Qur'an was available to any body throughout the 1400 years. I must say all scientist stole from Qur'an. And did it in systematic way so that no body could say they know all that from Qur'an. Well the question is why they did this. Actually all scientific discoveries indeed the astronomy or physics related were important and whoever did that got a lot of fame, the Nobel pries. They also got a lot of money and respect (called as hero) . They would be fool to admit they have got it from Qur'an. Than they would have ruined their own lives with their own hand. So they did this so nice and clean. It was their old method. I have so many examples but. There is no need. As the above data explains itself a lot for the peoples who think. This should be enough. He is All"h, the Creator, the Inventor of all things, the Bestower of forms. To Him belong the Best Names[] . All that is in the heavens and the earth glorify Him. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. (24)
Reinstate corporal punishment in schools

Thanks! I suppose I put you in an awkward spot to respond to. Sorry about that! I had never actually thought about this topic before. Thanks for making me think about it! As for parenting, it's not that my parents were bad, it's simply that they had to focus on my sister because of what was happening. I had my own little world to cope in, and they were protecting me as best they could, no parent is perfect.
Reinstate corporal punishment in schools

Damn, hard to comment after that. I am sorry you went thru that. Looks like things are looking up for you now tho. Learn from all of that experience and be a better parent when its your turn. Your situation was lame. No doubt. There are exceptions to every rule. And a broad application of corporal punishment obviously does not work for all. However, like you said, kids learn from each other also. If one acts up and others see the acting up kid go unpunished, they see that and learn that also. On compounds the problem. You made some great points. Take care.
Reinstate corporal punishment in schools

Oh gosh. Alright. Let's get this over with. When I was in fifth grade, I was going through severe depression and suicidal thoughts. I was acting out of line because of things happening at home, and if corporal punishment was allowed do you think that would help me in any way? Here's the answer: NO. Children can learn their lesson without physical pain. It's not so much that the teachers can't enforce rules because the punishment is weak, no. Instead, it's because some teachers are pushovers. Will corporal punishments help them not be pushovers? Likely not. Could the power be easily abused? Absolutely. My mom and dad have their experiences that they've shared with me. They find today's methods to be better and effective. And what about people with autism or bipolar disorder? Some of them aren't put into special classes. If they're in normal classes (which is more common than one may think), do you think they should suffer physical pain because of a mental illness? What if they're shutting down and don't respond? Oh, well, for giving your best efforts to keep calm, rather than being asked what's going on, you get your wrist smacked with a ruler and a wooden oar smacked against your a$$. Doesn't that sound pleasant and completely utterly reasonable? It shouldn't. Many teachers at the schools I've been to are hesitant to give a student punishment no matter how badly they're acting up. I'm not sure that corporal punishment would make a big difference, as they would probably avoid that. Gosh, sitting outside in the hallway was enough for a kid to learn their lesson the first time; it's humiliating. Though I haven't been there many times, a few of my classmates have and they always feel embarrassed. Always. So imagine that I'm teaching a class and you and a friend are talking. Oh no, the horror. How will the class ever survive? Well, it won't. So obviously you need to learn your lesson. I take a ruler and smack your wrist with it ten times, then go back to teaching. Now, you have a bruise on your wrist when instead you could've simply been told to stop talking.
All Drugs Should Be Legal

1) People on drugs do, quite often, hurt people. There are many deaths in drunk driving related accidents. 2) I also think that Marijuana should be legalized, just not other drugs. Cigarettes and alcohol are more dangerous, and shouldn't be legal compared to marijuana. 3) I think we should continue to fight drug use for more serious drugs like methamphetamines and herion, however, we should cut back on spending for fighting drugs such as marijuana. ThinkProgress also isn't a very valid source, as it is extremely biased, talking in other articles about a "racist regime" and says that the term "lone wolf" is coined by white nationalists to adapt racism to a new age. This is basically saying that all media and much of the gov't are white nationalists. Obviously, TP is a very left wing biased website. (sorry for going a bit off topic) 4) While America could earn tax money, many drug makers would continue to make their own, legal or not, to save money. Then, they could distribute without any tax revenue being generated. 5) Since drugs aren't cheap, they aren't cheap to make, and that price would basically counter the money that we would save.
All Drugs Should Be Legal

It is okay, this is also my first debate.I Have couple of arguments for legalizing drugs and i am now going to list them in no particular order.1.In a free society people should have a choice of what they want to do until it does not hurt somebody else except them, so if they want to do drugs they should be allowed to because it is their choice and they can hurt themselves and ruin their lives if they want to.2.Why should alcohol and tobacco be legal but other dangerous substances not.Alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and deadly substances, so why should they be legal while substances like marijuana be illegal while we know that marijuana is healthier than alcohol and tobacco. http://www.businessinsider.com... are 23 health benefits of marijuanaand here is another article about why marijuana is good for you http://www.mtlblog.com...;3.Wasted tax dollars on war on drugs.It has been estimated that the United States spends $51 billion annually on War on Drugs.If drugs were legalized that money could be used for better things like education and hospitals and not for something that has barely any progress.Only four percent of Americans thinks that U.S. is winning the war on drugs http://thinkprogress.org...4. America could earn money from drugs.America would earn tax money from drugs and that would definitely help the financial situation in America.5.America would save money cause it would have less prisoners and that would also help the financial situation in America.I am saving the rest of the arguments for the other rounds.
Resolved: The Bible does not teach that it alone is sufficient

Resolved: The Bible does not teach that it alone is sufficientThis is pretty much a debate on "sola scriptura". So yeah. If you have questions, ask in comments before accepting the debate. The Bible referred to is the CATHOLIC Bible, with 73 books. Not that I expect the Deuterocanon to come into this, but I just want to be explicit.Rules:1. No semantics.2. Use reasonably intelligible grammar/spelling.3. A forfeit is not an automatic loss, but it is a loss of the conduct point and probably will also cost arguments.4. Burden of Proof is shared. Since I don't really know what my opponent will bring up, I will just start out by refuting some generic verses often used by proponents of this theory, but by Round 3 I will be focused specifically on my opponent's arguments.Debate Structure:1. Acceptance.2. I babble some nonsense, my opponent makes their case.3. I attack my opponent's case, and they defend it.4. Conclusions. No new arguments from either side.Good luck!
Karaoke/Singing Challenge

I would like to do a karaoke debate challenge.We will be singing songs of our own choosing, one for each round (2 songs each). You may sing with or without accompaniment. Please upload your video to Youtube and post it in your round.Con may open their first round with a song if they like, but then they cannot post a song in the last round (for a total of 2 songs each).Voters should consider the following scale:Conduct: Were there any forfeits?Arguments: Overall, who had the better songs/sounded better?Thank you for accepting this challenge!
Karaoke/Singing Challenge

Tulle, I have thoroughly enjoyed hearing you sing, and I'm really impressed that you can do it without any musical accompaniment.For the last two days, I've been playing around with iMovie, learning how to clone myself so I can use multiple instruments and harmonize with myself. I recorded myself singing melody and harmony to "Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkle, and both guitar parts to "Fade to Black" by Metallica, and I came really close to posting one of those. But in the end, I decided to go with the video I originally recorded.This is "Sister Golden Hair" by America.http://www.youtube.com...This "debate" was a lot of fun! Thanks for the brilliant idea, Tulle!
Karaoke/Singing Challenge

Thank you, philo, for being a formidable opponent. I hope to do this again, sometime in the near future. I really enjoyed your first round (your rendition of While My Guitar Gently Weeps has been in my head all day!). I apologize for posting this at the 11th hour, but without further ado, here is my video. I chose to sing Say You'll Be There by the Spice Girls :p http://www.youtube.com... Looking forward to your next round!
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

My opponent supplied no definition of welfare of their own except money spent on "poor people".Define poor. Define "money spent".Define welfare. Give a threshold.USE SOURCESUntil my opponent does these things, my definition of welfare, financial assistance by the state, fits just fine. The very first line of Round One by my opponent:"i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems." [sic] My opponent uses welfare SEPARATE from "spending on the poor" and even uses AND to bridge them meaning thata) welfare is separate from "spending on the poor"&b) "spending on the poor" goes with welfare to combine into the issue at handI have pointed out the general welfare side of the equation which includes all financial assistance by the state.Pensions are financial assistance for the state for retirement.Health services, insurance and health care is assistance by the state for health reasons.Any spending outside of normal pay by the government counts as assistance. My opponent uses claims that they cannot back up and have not backed up with sources.Welfare and "spending on the poor" account for 56% of government spending.The government is running a deficit.It is plausible to assume that the things that take up a majority of government funding has something to do with its deficit.My opponent says outrageous things that make no sense such as:"Social Security has generated so much revenue, that a arge protion of our national debt is simply us borrowing from in in earlier years." Social security generating revenue? So much that our debt is borrowing from it? This is nonsense.This nonsense, coupled with a lack of sources in addition to terrible spelling and grammar plus my opponents inability to defend the resolution they established in Round One leads me to think that I deserve the victory.
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

Con is not using any traditional definition of welfare. Welfare in a more general sense is money that is spent on people who are relatively poor due to their poor situation. This doesn't need to be a precise definition. Also, more typical preciser definitions of welfare is cash assistance due to having kids etc. Con simply shows that the government spends money on health, which involves both medicare and medicaid, as already mentioned. Medicare is self funded via pay roll taxes. Even if we spent more than the taxes take in... this is a program that is for everyone who is old. Medicare is most of the health expenses, and so most of what con is referring to doesn't count. Pensions like for gov employees, or health insurnace for gov employees, sin't for poor people.... it's for regular Joes who the government hires. This isn't a poor people program, or issue. Pensions like for social security... are also self funded, like medicare is. Social Security has generated so much revenue, that a arge protion of our national debt is simply us borrowing from in in earlier years. I take con's obscurring and semantics of these issues as a tacit admission that the government doesn't really spend much relatively on poor people... the obvious intention of this debate.
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

Welfare - financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government [1] Now, my opponent has a misconception of what welfare truly is. Since "spending on the poor" is an ambiguous statement we will use "welfare" as our benchmark. If we look at this budget breakdown [2] we see that Pensions, Health and Welfare (the government definition) make up 56% of the budget. Welfare is any financial or other assistance given to an individual or family from some form of government. Outside of the ambiguous blanket term "welfare" which is 12% of the budget alone we have Pensions which is financial assistance to those in retirement. Health includes Medicaid and Medicare which is health assistance (which costs money) to the poor, the old or to veterans. So, if we total up all the actual welfare up we see that it totals more than HALF of all government spending to the tune of over 2 trillion dollars.If you're looking for "government spending problems", it'd be good to look at the 56% of the budget that is financial assistance to various people.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...