BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Balance, GM Foods are Beneficial for Humans to Use.

Thanks, Arcanas. Unfortunately, I am not able to submit all of my arguments once again due to having to practice for my piano competition tomorrow IRL (I have a first place title to defend along with the moola :3). Therefore, I will only submit a clarification and a basis for my arguments and rebuttals in the next round (I promise that will have much more content, lol). History of Genetic Modification Before I delve into this topic further, I would like to clarify the meaning of genetic modification. GM is not a modern form of biotechnology--on the contrary, it has been used for centuries. Farmers have attempted to crossbreed plants, use selective breeding to concentrate desirable genetic traits in their crops, and use hybridization to combine traits of different organisms into one.[1] The US Food and Drug Administration even officially states that "many of the foods that are already common in our diet are obtained from plant varieties that were developed using conventional genetic techniques of breeding and selection."[2] Take the nectarine, for an example. While it is the same species as the peach and its hairless skin is due to a recessive allele, this could easily be a result of GM in that peaches with this allele can be selectively breeded to consistently produce peaches with this trait, hence the nectarine. Other organisms bred with conventional genetic modification methods have shown to have no negative impact on the environment solely based on their unique genetic traits as of yet. Therefore, it can be concluded that organisms that have not been subject to modern genetic modification and manipulative methods are safe to use and have no significant net detriment. Of course, the primary rebuttal to this analysis is that even these GM methods reduce biodiversity (this is also a part of my opponent's argument in GM negatively affecting the environment, which I will rebut later). Another clarification must be made, however: Genetic modification is hardly one of the main threats to the biodiversity in ecosystems. A study conducted by Luc Hens and Emmanuel K. Boon from the Health Department of the University of Brussels states that the causes of biodiversity loss from agriculture is not due to excessive genetic modification; rather, it is because of overharvesting and homogenisation in agriculture.[3] Thus, instead of GM, these two causes are primarily to blame for the negative effects of agriculture on biodiversity. Therefore, it can be concluded that conventional GM methods are relatively safe to be used. On to you, Arcanas, and apologies once more. Note: I am on my phone right now, so I will post my sources in the comments and the next round when I get home.
On Balance, GM Foods are Beneficial for Humans to Use.

It's about time that I tried a serious debate (without forfeiting), so might as well. I will use the same rules as Bsh1's debates, albeit slightly altered to my tastes: Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is on Pro 9. First round is acceptance only. This debate has been set to be impossible to accept, so if you wish to do so, say so in the comments. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point Full Topic: On balance, GM foods are more beneficial than malicious for humans to use. Definitions: Genetic Modification - The direct manipulation of an organism's genetic material using biotechnology Food - Any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc. Beneficial - Favorable or advantageous; resulting in good Malicious - Intending or intended to do harm NOTE: I request that my opponent will not accept this before the month of April. Good luck, Arcanas.
Feminism

XD you request that someone argue that feminism is fair based on FACTS!?... I think we both know that's not possible because feminism is based completely on emotions and not statistics. I feel like you were hoping a real feminist would accept your challenge so you could destroy them... lets be honest, feminists aren't brave enough to go on a website and take up an argument by themselves. you would probably make a lot of good points, but you would loses because the feminist will just go an wine to there friends and get them to come back her up. While I'm not a feminist, in fact I hate feminism, but I will be happy to represent a fair argument in there favor of there beliefs, regardless of how ignorant and retarded they might be XD I have dealt with a lot of feminists so I trust I can at least try to give you a good fight. Okay -breaths deeply- lets do this... in the situation of two people getting divorced, and assuming the woman gets the children who pays alimony? the woman isn't going to pay alimony to herself! Ha ha men only ever pay alimony when the woman gets the children so I think your questions should be, why do women get the children more often. well it has been proved by science, history, and personal experience that women are better with children. men don't pay alimony because of sexism, they pay alimony because the situation just happens to favor women. I don't understand how people can say that feminism is man hating. it's not hateful of men it is hateful of hate towards women which happens to be more prevalent in men. (P.S. let me know if you thought I was going to go with that "feminism is the belief of equality" BS XD) it isn't our fault you hate women me than women do.
Life is Good

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the last round of his debate. Let us review my opponent's concessions: -We live to toil, toil to live, and all for no reason. (Conceded, Round 2) -All we do and toil for is essentially worth nothing (except the pleasure that we get from it). (Conceded, Round 2; Clarified, Round 3) -Pleasure has no source besides subsistence and reproduction. (Dropped, Round 3) -Pleasure is a hormonal and emotional facade. (Conceded, Round 3) We can therefore conclude that life is meaningless, and essentially worthless. While life may feel or seem good, it is not in essense. Under no definition is life good. My opponent also had burden of proof.
Life is Good

In life, we are constantly toiling to maintain our subsistence. We toil to live. We subsist so that we might live to subsist another day. We live to toil. We reproduce so that others might share in our toil. Life is but endless toil, whether by intellectual or physical labour. What do we get for all our hard work? The answer is: nothing. What out there is truly a reward for our toil? The answer, we know, is pleasure. But what is pleasure? Pleasure is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain. . http://wings.buffalo.edu... This chemical reaction can only come from a few things, and among these are eating, drinking, and sex. Eating and drinking help us accomplish our subsistence and sex accomplishes reproduction. Pleasure can also come from the accomplishment of our goals, which are ultimately meaningless. In the words of King Solomon the Wise, "There is nothing really worthwhile out there. " So, in the end, pleasure derives from subsistence and reproduction. Subsistence is but the result of toil, and reproduction only creates more humans that are forced to share our toil. "How fortunate are those who were never born," declared Solomon, "for they have never seen the evils of this life". We live to toil and we toil to live. We live so that we might live long enough to make more life, which must toil as well. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied. No matter how much we hear, we are not content. No matter how much we eat, we are never full. No matter how much we do, we are never done. None of our accomplishments are truly permanent. All we do simply whithers away. After long enough, it is forgotten, and after long enough, we are forgotten. There is nothing truly good in this life. I await a rebuttal.
Life is Good

In this argument, I will argue that life is indeed good (of course, you can probably tell that from my username). My opponent must demonstrate that life is not good. To clarify, here are some definitions. Life: the state or quality of being alive Note: this definition is applied to human life, not some other form of life. Good: (1): agreeable, pleasant (1): adequate, satisfactory http://www.merriam-webster.com... This should be an excellent debate. I will allow my opponent to begin.
This debate will, with 100% certainty, be won by con.

You can win if you concede if irrational people choose to votebomb. And this is more likely than not considering it takes less effort for one to not read a debate and cast an uneducated impulsive vote than the latter. Thus, votebombing is the path of least resistance and it takes less effort to agree to the proposition than to fight it so most will inevitably vote pro. And there is certainly no 100% certainty in the matter.
Anti-Venom vs The Incredible Hulk

The statement you just said was incorrect. Anti-Venom can cure anything.Anti-Venom was the one who absorbed the Venom symbiote and cured the host.He has also cured Mr. Negative and Spider-Man (He took away his powers and gave them back after)We are going down to the bases here, Spider-Man got bit by a radioactive spider.Gamma=RadiationTherefore Anti-Venom<Hulk
Anti-Venom vs The Incredible Hulk

Yes Anti-Venom does have the ability to take away any disease, but Gamma Radiation is not a disease therefore he cannot take it away. Since the "Hulk" came from the gamma radiation and Anti-Venom can"t take it away he can"t take the "Hulk". The Hulk can calm down but is easily aggravated, making him calm down is only a temporary solution. As soon as he gets mad he will transform right back to the "Hulk" The Hulk is virtually indestructible, every attempt to take the Hulk down as failed. Bruce Banner has also tried numerous times to kill it and has been unsuccessful. Trying to take him out only make the Hulk angry. Hulk can throw tanks and cars across miles and make it look like child"s play.
Anti-Venom vs The Incredible Hulk

This is my first time on Debate.org. I really wanted to show my debating skills on this website so lets me start out with this great match up. First thing is first is I wanted to say that Anti-Venom does have the healing touch. He can take away any disease from any opponent. The Hulk was affected with Gamma Radiation so his "Hulk" could be taken away. Second of all Anti-Venom has been able to shape-shift in comics he is able to shape shift into any human and disguise himself. He could easily turn into the people that Hulk care about making Hulk calm down Furthermore, Anti-Venom has a great deal of durability, he has taken tons of shotgun shots in the back of the head from punisher. Plus he has been able to lift up a whole tank with ease, a regular tank weighs 67 tons. A punch with the force of 67 tons will be able to take down buildings. That is all I have for now so will the other side please rebutt
Anti-Venom vs The Incredible Hulk

I am going to say once more that "gamma radiation" is not a true form of disease therefore Anti-Venom can't take "Hulk" away from anybody. My opponent even said that " the way to cure a snake bite isn't a super-hero" yet in earlier in the debate he said that Anti-venom could take away any disease. So i am getting confused on which side he is on. My argument still stands that Hulk is better.
Anti-Venom vs The Incredible Hulk

Really. I mean really.You basicaly just said that the poision that is used to cure snake bites would not beat Hulk.*face palm*Ok so in the marvel universe. There is a character named Anti-Venom. He is able to cure any disease. He has super-strength. He is able to cure radioactivity also. I read Spider-Island the comic. Everyone got bitten by radioactive spiders. Anti-Venom cured the radioactivity.So, no Hulk will be forever cured of "Hulk Mode"The way to cure snake bites isn't a super-heroU is a stuptid
Should Development take place at the cost of environment.

Development should not take place at the cost of the environment. People that live in underdeveloped areas of the world are usually living sustainably off of the land through hunting,fishing and agriculture. We should make them develop sustainably as well, since we know what a unsustainable/non-green society can do, we have the responsibility of educating underdeveloped nations about living sustainably. By helping them live sustainably we increase the speed of their development.
It is not reasonable to believe in God

Take 2 My argument is basically this: 1) There is no evidence for the existence of God. (Assumed premiss to be argued about during the debate) 2) If there is no evidence for the existence of x, then there is no reason to believe in the existence of x. (I will put an argument forth in the next paragraph) C) There is no reason to believe in God. (From 1 and 2) God is here defined as a personal, supernatural creator of the universe. When I say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, I mean that there are neither any experiences or logical arguments that make the existence of God likely or probable. Experience is any information from the outside world that comes to us through our senses, and logical argumentation is anything that can be deduced from this experience or tautologies, statements that must be true even if we don't have any experience in relation to them. Thus, experiential evidence is of the kind: - I am looking at a tree. And tautologies are of the kind: - 2+2=4 or - Something exists or nothing exists. Since "God exists" isn't a tautology, and assuming God's existence can't be deduced through experiential evidence or other tautological statements, then there is no reason to believe in God, thus entailing weak atheism: the position that belief in God's existence has not yet been shown to be reasonable. If there is no evidence for the existence of God, then there is no reason to believe in God. This is because, if there is no evidence for a proposition, then there is at least as much evidence for the proposition's negation. So, if there is no evidence for leprechauns, (And don't fool yourself by thinking that no-one's looking: http://www.irelandseye.com...), and someone believes in them nonetheless, then it would be reasonable to ask why they don't disbelieve in leprechauns without evidence. Surely it is more rational to believe only in things that have evidence, in which case we would be able to supply a reason for not believing in the nonexistence of such entities. Furthermore, surely there are a set of beliefs, all of them without evidence, which are contradictory. For instance, we have no evidence for either the belief that all leprechauns that exist have beards, or the belief that all leprechauns that exist are clean-shaven. Nonetheless, we cannot believe both of these propositions at once. Thus, given that there is no evidence that God is likely to exist, there is no reason to believe in God. I'll leave the matter of evidence to the con, allowing them to supply anything they would grant as evidential support.
Is God real, Is the bible real

I was making the point that instead of using the premise against God, I was using it as evidence, Because if finite beings can describe the God of an infinite universe, Then God is not infinite, And therefore is illogical that the God I believe was God. But God is infinite, A God who created every atom and cell. That, Is logical for the God to be above human Logic. How does explaining an infinite result the idea in question not being infinite? That does not logically follow. B your logic explaining Trump as the president makes him not the president. Our finite life can point infinities like numbers, Even numbers, Prime numbers etc doesn't mean they somehow become finite. You can tell if he people who saw him were unbelievers, They crucified him on the cross. The same people that followed Jesus and his miracles were the same people that killed him. What believer what kill his savior? Does not prove Bible is real or God is real so irrelevant. You can always say that it might have been allusion, That people were just seeing things, The reality is, If 500 people is not enough, And more people seeing God doing thousands of the supernatural, If that's not enough evidence, Then I cannot help you, And were not talking logically. Can 500 people be wrong? Yes do we have anything else to go by? No. Therefore it is a belief since we cannot verify it to be true. If testimonies are wrong are they still testimonies? Yes. If evidence is wrong is it still evidence? No. Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. https://www. Bethinking. Org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sourcesLooked at the source. I specifically want current scientists who can verify the texts to be true. More specifically a Christian scientist, Religious scientist that does not follow Christianity and an atheist/agnostic scientist. My arguments would still be the same for past famous people. It is still testimonies no other form of evidence can be found. What does it mean for the"bible as a whole to be repeatable"Lets take one example. The virgin Mary. Can a women give birth without being fertilized? No therefore this cannot be repeatable. If a miracle happens once and only once then it is not repeatable therefore under my 3 criteria The Bible is not evidence which does not prove the existence of God.
Is God real, Is the bible real

The reason why I said your first premise is flaws is because of your view of the premise. I was making the point that instead of using the premise against God, I was using it as evidence, Because if finite beings can describe the God of an infinite universe, Then God is not infinite, And therefore is illogical that the God I believe was God. But God is infinite, A God who created every atom and cell. That, Is logical for the God to be above human Logic. Also another thing, You can tell if he people who saw him were unbelievers, They crucified him on the cross. The same people that followed Jesus and his miracles were the same people that killed him. What believer what kill his savior? Also, You can always say that it might have been allusion, That people were just seeing things, The reality is, If 500 people is not enough, And more people seeing God doing thousands of the supernatural, If thats not enough evidence, Then I cannot help you, And were not talking logically. Also we can verify if they were biased or christian, By historical records of the event. The bible is not the only historical document that records many of these events. https://www. Bethinking. Org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources Also, What does it mean for the"bible as a whole to be repeatable" do you want history to repeat itself and have jesus walk the earth again, Please elaborate.
Is God real, Is the bible real

Your first premise is flawed. You say that because the God of the Universe Has so many names it would be difficult to explain God. That is 100 percent correct. God is Not bound by time, He is sovereign, Omnipotent, And boundless perfect figure. Because God has many names is irrelevant to whether God exist. You say my premise is flawed then you say it is 100 percent correct. The many names are required to logically make an arugment for God. All-knowing and all-powerful to name two. Logically it would be really unlikely might even be impossible to logically make a case for it. The examples are not flawed because that would have to come into when assessing the God of Christianity. Not proving or stating an argument for each attributes that God has would be misleading and will bring a fair outcome if an attribute is removed to suit someone's agenda. There were hundreds of thousands of people that saw Jesus walk on this planet, Let alone live. People saw him walk on waters, Feed ten thousands with a couple pieces of bread and fish, Even saw him walk on water, And even saw him ascend up to heaven. All witness testimonies. No pictures since they did not have any cameras. Jesus walking on the planet is irrelavant. Walk on water? Cannot determine if the people who vouched for Jesus were all non-believers or not susceptical to illusion which makes it difficult to believe even a single person did not ask questions or make sure it was not an illusion. Everyone I am sure looked and were amazed not making sure it was an illusion. Ascend to heaven. If they point to the sky. Well we can say the sky has clouds but has not been reported to have airbone terrain. We cannot verify if the people were in question a question of followers of Jesus, Another religion or someone did not believe in religion. Here is another thing, Of course we can't test someone else from being fatherless, He is God. He does not abide by humane things. He does what he pleases. There are some things that will only happen once, This is one of them. The Bible is not repeatable as a whole so it does not complete what I call evidence. Your right the bible has predicted, ALOT. There were hundreds of prophecy that came true Just bu Jesus birth. And we know by historical manuscripts that the predictions were 500 or more years prior to Christ being born. A unavoidable supernatural fact. Fits 1 of my 3 criteria. May we still learn something new
Is God real, Is the bible real

So I will start. Your first premise is flawed. You say that because the God of the Universe Has so many names it would be difficult to explain God. That is 100 percent correct. God is Not bound by time, He is sovereign, Omnipotent, And boundless perfect figure. Because God has many names is irrelevant to whether God exist. Your second premise is correct, I agree with you completely. The Cosmological argument is not enough to prove that God exist. There are many things that prove that God exist, That is just a tiny piece. (i will elaborate more through the argument) Addressing your third premise here is this. There were hundreds of thousands of people that saw Jesus walk on this planet, Let alone live. People saw him walk on waters, Feed ten thousands with a couple pieces of bread and fish, Even saw him walk on water, And even saw him ascend up to heaven. Here is another thing, Of course we can't test someone else from being fatherless, He is God. He does not abide by humane things. He does what he pleases. There are some things that will only happen once, This is one of them. Your right the bible has predicted, ALOT. There were hundreds of prophecy that came true Just bu Jesus birth. And we know by historical manuscripts that the predictions were 500 or more years prior to Christ being born. A unavoidable supernatural fact. I do want to say thx for accepting, I give full respect to you.