BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Production Foods With Added Nutrients

The process of natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms is reflected in the diversity of wild plant species. GMO is thought to interfere with these processes by endangering biodiversity. It would be best for the world to have diverse varieties of say rice, rather than depend on one type. If a new pest surfaces by way of natural selection, in the absence of biodiversity, we would be staring at famine on a massive scale. Moreover, GM seeds change the biological structure of the plant, something that came as a result of long evolutionary processes. Inserting certain genes into crops will change the metabolism of plants and stop production of certain elements, like lignin in Soybean which physically sustains the plant. After genetic modification, Soybean stems break down when exposed to temperatures above 45 degrees. As seen from this example, the increase in genetic load on the plant reduces the adaptability value of the plant. Meaning that GM plants will tend to be less adaptable to the environment, as they try to maintain the genetic load in proportion.
Plant Adaptation to Unfavourable Climate and Pesticide Reduction

On the flipside however, there has been lots of criticism levelled at these pesticide-resistant strategies, raised by fears that in the long-term, it will lead to evolution of pest resistance. It is also not clear how pests will react and adapt to this change, placing humanity in a very precarious position. This could greatly impact conventional agriculture and strides that GM has already made so far. According to the principle of natural selection, if an organism is submitted to pressure in terms of survival, its probability of evolutionary adaptation increases. Nature, for purposes of survival induces a genetic change in organisms. An example is how bacteria developed its antibiotic resistance. With this regard, development of herbicide-resistant crops could eventually result in the emergence of resistant weed varieties, as well as resistant pests. If these effects take place in developing countries, where the ability to adapt to these challenges is limited, the damage could be irreversible.
GMO in Medical Research

There could be unforeseen health risks associated with this, including unexpected gene interaction and horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Genetic material that is transferred directly to a living cell, followed by its expression is called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Normally, when DNA is transferred naturally from parent to offspring, it's called vertical gene transfer. HGT can occur within species and between species. As of now, it is widely accepted that many human diseases have come up because of genetic factors. Using modified viruses and bacteria could interact with human genes causing some to be repressed, expressed or turned off completely by these modifier elements. This could increase human susceptibility to diseases. Using genetically modified viruses/bacterium could result in HGT, which could manifest as mutations or worse.
Bio-Remediation

With bioremediation, if the process is not properly controlled, the consequences could be worse than the initial contamination. If the organic contaminants are not fully broken down, the by-product could be much more toxic, more mobile and easily dispersed. The process is also specific to an environmental state, for example certain temperatures, and pH, among others. Wind and pollinators can transport GM seeds into unintended areas, contaminating native vegetation. If such environment factors vary, the results could be unpredictable and might be dangerous. Lastly, an organism might have a high affinity for other elements in the contaminated area, choosing to metabolize them over the contaminant. This might prove difficult to control and if the by-product is toxic, it will pose health risks.
Economic Effects

It takes long time for GM foods to be developed and brought to the market and this increases cost. At the end of the day, bio-technology companies that spearhead genetic research want to make a profitable return on investment. To do this, they have to patent their products. Patent-infringement has been a huge concern for agri-businesses involved in GMO. In a humanitarian gesture, consumer advocates pressure them not to patent their seeds, so as to help small farmers and third world countries afford them. But on the other hand, no patent means they will lose out on big opportunities to make more money, which also ends up widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Patent-infringement has made agribusinesses develop GM crops with a "suicide gene". This gene makes plants viable for only one growing season, producing sterile seeds that don't germinate. Farmers would be forced to buy fresh seeds after every harvest, potentially placing them in slavery, at the mercy of these companies. Without a doubt, this would be financially disastrous to farmers, especially those in impoverished nations.
Production of Edible Medicine and Vaccines

This is perhaps the most innovative application of GMO. This process involves the modification of animal and plant genes in order to yield edible output with preventive molecules, for example milk, eggs and fruit. Edible vaccines, produced in milk or fruit could ease manufacturing and distribution costs by making it globally accessible to people. Vaccination through injection has many disadvantages, including the need for medically trained staff, high costs, not to mention constant cooling during transportation and storage. Use of needles also increases the risk of infections. In these cases, an edible vaccine comes in handy. In recent years, there have been examples of transgenic plants developed by researchers to help developing countries. Transgenic potatoes which contain cholera toxins have been developed to immunize against diseases. In 2004, the Pharma-Planta Programme was granted 12 million euros to develop genetically modified plants to help grow vaccines against tuberculosis and rabies.
Production Foods With Added Nutrients

The objective of creating food with more balanced chemical compositions is to satisfy nutritional needs in human beings and farm animals. The next generation of genetically modified plants would have less anti-nutritional elements and higher nutritional content. Scientists will genetically engineer plants with high availability of elements such as amino acids, vitamins and minerals, which are considered beneficial to health. Development has been making headway with the most famous of such crops being the Golden Rice, developed with an additional supplement of beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is the pre-cursor to Vitamin A. In developing countries, Vitamin A deficiency has been very detrimental to the health of children, causing up to 3 million deaths of children annually and hundreds of thousands of cases of childhood blindness. Bio-fortification of these nutrients could help save lives.
Plant Adaptation to Unfavourable Climate and Pesticide Reduction

GM technology on crops may offer solutions to control pests, fungal infections and growing crops in particularly harsh environments. To achieve this end, scientists are developing pest-resistant, fungal-resistant and herbicide-tolerant plants. Some crops have been genetically modified to be tolerant of high soil salinity and resistant to drought. In Africa for example, climate varies from region to region making it very difficult to breed crop varieties for each region. Thus, the ability to design crops suited to specific climatic conditions is much more effective, and is beneficial to developing African countries. It also helps to control pests and fungal infections. GM crops have been modified to target specific types of pests like rootworm, unlike traditional pests which kill all kinds of insects without discrimination. They have been estimated to save on fuel because fuel is needed for farmers to operate machine spraying pesticides. This also reduces carbon dioxide emissions. In China for example, GM rice has made labour, energy consumption and costs reduce significantly because the amount of treatment normally required has reduced. This effect has compounded to a safer environment as less farmers are exposed to pesticides. The impact on other organisms like insects also decreases.
GMO in Medical Research

A majority of consumers are used to hearing about GMO application to food, but otherwise remain vastly unaware of its implementation in medical research. GMO is playing a massive role in the development of new medicine and treatment options. Scientists have been examining the effects of genetically modifying viruses and bacteria to target and destroy unhealthy cells in human beings. Gene therapy, which makes use of genetic modification, is fast becoming a viable treatment option for many people against many disorders including cancer. Many people suffering from anaemia are treated with a hormone (epoetin alfa), produced through genetic modification. For example in UK, scientists have been experimenting with GM viruses to target lung, ovarian, pancreatic, and liver cancer, in vitro. In tumor bearing mice, the modified virus replicated, spread and killed the tumor cells. Additionally, because bacteria is easy to grow and scale-up for production, it is a preferred option in genetic engineering. Genetically modified bacteria has been observed to secrete useful elements like soluble CD4 (a protein), which has been observed to block laboratory strains of HIV from affecting human cells. These are all examples of the benefits and promise that GMO holds for the future.
there is a difference between egalitarian equality and political equality

What is riling people's feathers is that there are some rich people and a lot of poor people. An egalitarian would like to see all people earning the same. However, this is not political equality. What people earn should be based upon their efforts and achievements, not some abstract notion of equality. People should be rewarded for their efforts. The emotion that is driving this anti-capitalist ideology is not reason and rationality but laziness and envy. This is a meritocratic society whereby those who work longer hours, those who plan and those who try earn more than those who have a poor work ethic. This is justice, and this is what our capitalist state provides.
Income is based upon the market value of each person’s productivity

This is assuming that Britain is truly meritocratic; that anyone born in any circumstances can get educated and achieve great things. This is quite simply not the case. The capitalist system gives more opportunities to those who have capital. Education is money orientated; those who go to private school are more likely to be accepted into Oxbridge due to the old school tie network that is at play. The capitalist system is a system whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich can reinvest their capital whilst the poor have to continue to work and spend every penny they have on living costs. These living costs, including utility bills and food, are profits for the rich. So the poor remain unable to save their money to make investments because they spend all their money on capitalist living costs which make the already rich even more rich. This is the injustice of our capitalist system.
Income is based upon the market value of each person’s productivity

The capitalist system is not creating the gap between the rich and the poor, it is the people themselves who are creating the gap. The rich continue to do what made them rich and the poor continue to do what made them poor. Surely criticizing the rich for choosing the most lucrative appointment of their time is not helping the scenario. They did what anyone with a sense of ambition would do. Everyone has the opportunity to choose the most lucrative use of their own time. They cannot complain when they have made the wrong choices. It is this blame the system not myself attitude that got poor people where they are in the first place. Peter Schwartz Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip.
We can see it on a global scale

The expansion of capitalism has brought great economical benefits, and the reasons behind an existing poverty gap are not purely due to capitalism per se, what PROP is saying is false. They say that Africa has no more expectations of economical growth than what they had 10 years ago, this is totally wrong since Africa´s GDP growth has increased in the past decade in a 5.4%, in addition expectations for next year’s growth are around 7% [[www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/africas-economic-growth-may-reach-7-in-2010-2010-02-22]]. This growth is because of the change in their policies towards a more open economy, bringing as a result attraction of foreign direct investment which has a direct impact in the country´s wealth and on the peoples living conditions; more jobs are being created and a constant accumulation of capital. The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely capitalistic; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 60´s and the 80´s, where wars, political and social instability hampered economical growth that would had improved the regions wealth. Nigeria reduced its population below the poverty line from 43% to 34% from 1985 to 1993 and 59% of its GDP was related to private merchandise trade; right after the sub-Saharan region came into a period of greater stability.[[data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria]]On the other hand countries as Somalia, where armed conflicts are in progress, have had less or even no growth nor trade or investment[[data.worldbank.org/country/Somalia]]showing that the true reasons why there is poverty are other. OPP believes that the solution to the great poverty gap is in having less and less armed conflicts and political instability and that capitalism has positive impact in combating poverty. As studies have shown income per capita is increasing and prize volatility is decreasing bringing the region a step forward to combat the gap of poverty rather than harming it.Economical is directly related to the improvement of living standards and the possibility of breaking this poverty gap.[[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/car022108b.htm]]
We can see it on a global scale

All we need to do is look at Bono’s charitable efforts to see that our nation is expediently wealthier than third world countries. The gap is continuing despite the recession. Because as the recession reigns people’s spending in, it also reigns in the amount of their money that they give to charities. In Britain we find it terrible when we have to go a week buying the value goods from our supermarkets. But this is incomparable to the poverty experienced in developing, third world countries. Britain’s living standards have increased dramatically, and so is what we expect out of life. However, those in Africa have the same expectations as they did 10 years ago. This is the true increase in inequality caused by a capitalist state which dictates that nothing is worthwhile unless it makes a profit.
It is those who do not work who reap the rewards from those who do

It is a rather broad generalisation to state that the capitalist owned the equipment due to previous wealth that he had been born into. There is a vast amount of social mobility in Britain whereby people can earn money and make big profits when they had very little to start with. Alan Sugar is one example. From selling goods out of the back of a van this is now one of the richest and famous men in Britain. It is his hard work that created the gap between him and the poorest, not the capitalist system. Also we have to point out that a capitalist system is a more fair system where people are paid proportional to the work performed. Contrary to what Prop is saying this is not explotation, you are not rewarding a person who fixes pipes the same as a doctor at a hospital, they are different works which demand different capabilities and hence different rewards. Explotation would be if they recieved no benefits, but workers in the status quo have ensurance, health care, and wages; which may be not as high as the CEO of the company they work for, but they are good, suficient and fairly established through meritocracy. In the times of Karl Marx explotations of the workers were true and evident but right now it is not creating a gap between people, in the status quo persons are recieving benefits and opportunities where enterpreneurship can happen to be succesfull(as on Alan Sugar´s example). Finally, the "capitalist" doen not completely set the wages he desires, they are regulations of the government and labour unions that protect workers. As we have shown, social mobility and oportunities created by the capitalist system are making this gap that the world has been carrying for centuries less and less by giving people a greater capability of improving their living standards. With free trade, investment, foreign companies in a country etc. the GDP of a country increases and hence more jobs, higher wages and greater possibilities of getting out of poverty.
It is those who do not work who reap the rewards from those who do

Karl Marx attested the fact that in capitalism, what makes the money is the labour. It is those of the poor classes who provide the physical labour. The capitalist takes that labour and gives a wage. That wage is not equal to the amount of money made by the labour and that is how the capitalist makes their profit. This can be seen as nothing more and nothing less than exploitation. So whilst the capitalist can set a wage and exploit as many people as he wants, his profits are unlimited. What put him in this privileged position in the first place? The fact that he owned the equipment bought through previous wealth. So in his life time, the capitalist will continue to increase his profits whilst the labourers will earn the same set wage that the capitalist so decides. This is what is increasing the income gap between the rich and the poor.
China is an example of this occurring

In the late 1990’s China moved towards a capitalist state as opposed to a socialist one. This change saw an increase in many of the problems that we have in Britain today which has resulted in inequality. China, under the communist system, had relatively no unemployment. Upon undertaking Capitalism, this statistic started to grow. The welfare state started to disintegrate so that benefits were cut off from the poorer parts of the population, the rural parts. Government was also seen to want a part in the economic rising occurring since 1978 so Government started to act as a capitalist itself; investing in the most lucrative industries which at the time were the costal exporters. Nowadays, we can see government helping big industries, we only need look at the banks in the recession; the government helping the bourgeoisie instead of the proletariats. All of these things that we have seen occur through China are an exact illustration of how Capitalism increases the income gap between the rich and the poor.
Referendum For A New Democracy

Yes. And it can be reversed when we start asking questions about the big picture... Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy? Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less? Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns? The world's first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? ...the extremely wealthy? What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today's world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? ...the people?
it just appears that way

The only reason this has come into issue now is due to the vast amount of press coverage given to the topic. This does not mean that the income gap is rising, just that we are hearing about it and making abigger deal out of it now. The gap is becoming more visible to us now. But surely this is a great thing. If we can see the inequaltiy we can attempt to change it. When we fail to see the inequality, that is where the problem lies. In communism, the inequalities are hidden. So this capitalism is well placed.
there is a difference between egalitarian equality and political equality

This simply does not work out mathematically. The gap is now so big between the rich and the poor, “political equality” would have to argue that the rich have worked 55,000 times harder than the average worker. Think of those billionaires who struck luck on the stock market after investing in a few shares. Compare them to those who work two jobs in order to keep their family above the bread line. Of these two sets, how can the wealthier be said to work harder? This is too simple of an analysis. It looks towards what capitalism is supposed to provide instead of what capitalism is actually doing.
It has negative psychological effects.

If you speak to people who have been subjected to corporal punishment, they state that it was good for them and taught them discipline. If you are going to talk of alcohol dependency then you will have to quantify how many, and also show the link between the corporal punishment and these problems. Please provide sources. I have never heard of this from anyone who has been spanked. Most times they regret they did what they did in the first place to get spanked. I have witnessed adults talk about their youth and go up to their parents and thank them for correcting them when they were foolish. I've also heard of some people who were locked up who wished someone had been tougher on them or gave them some more spankings. Some of these same inmates have ended up forming closer relationships with their parents, mainly their mothers, because they now realize what their mothers were trying to prevent and feel sorry to have become such a burden.
It depends on how the actual punishement is administered

Assuming the person punishing knows exactly what they are doing and knows how to control themself, there should be no problem with Corporal Punishment at all, the rules of Corporal Punishment would need to be altered, obviously. Because as they are they could hurt the child, But if altered it would be perfectly reasonable to administer corporal punishment I would say speak for yourself, or at least what you know. If the majority of administered corporal punishment was done incorrectly then the history of child protective services would be a whole lot more radical. Corporal punishment has been used by a majority of households and education centers for thousands of years until very recently. There will always be those who abuse the system, but that does not mean the system does not work. Now that society- at least Western society is claiming to be so much better, or wiser than previous societies then at least it can come up with a more regulated and consistent implementation of such a practice.