BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

I will argue that biodegradable plastics should become a primary resource for the world, rather than the typical plastics such as PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, etc. Con will provide evidence against biodegradable plastics, and for other types. First round is to accept. I'm looking for a quick 5 round debate, which should be comprehensive and informative.
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

Hello bakhter, 15.0 "bio-plastic … [are altered to] reduce the emissions of such carcinogens" 15.1 Alright, I concede that while most bio-plastics are within safe level of emission, others are more damaging (Franklin Associates 2006). Still, the BOP should be on you. 16.0 "sit on the surface of the earth polluting the environment" 16.1 Improper disposure of bio-plastics could also mean that occupy the same amount of time as traditional plastics. This is so since most bio-plastics typically require high heat and oxygen rich environment which can only be found in industrial compost bin (Wills A. 2010) 17.0 "Alternative strategies that are being implemented in plastic production" 17.1 Even with advance with the technology, the cost and energy involved are still more than traditional ones. (Petkewich, 2003. Ceresana Research, 2011) 18.0 "traditional plastics use non-renewable sources" 18.1 This is true; however, only 4% of our oil is being used for plastic production (Hutchinson, 2008). Furthermore, Cornucopian theory of perk oil guarantees that oil would never run out given constant improvement in technology and increase in price until it is not advantageous to continue using it. Hence, there is nothing wrong with using a non-renewable resource. 19.0 "biodegradable plastics having no recycling programs." 19.1 Although I believe the BOP lies with you, according to the US Energy Information Administration, biodegradable plastics that are made with 5% cornstarch or vegetable oil, cannot be recycled because the starch or oil additive compromises the quality of recycled plastics, 20.0 "superior in quality" 20.1 My point of quality only exists for the uses I named below. The fact that no bio-plastics are being used for say… shutter heat shield, makes one wonder why they chose it over bio-plastic given the similarity. 21.0 I am not quite clear about your last point and do not wish to confuse the reader by my interpretation, nonetheless, I am prepared to concede on it. You certainly are welcome for fun and insightful debate and the same could be extended to you. No biggie about the time and wishing you all the best in the votes :) References Franklin Associates (2006) Life Cycle Inventory of Five Products Produced From Polylactide (PLA) and Petroleum-Based Resins. Athena Institute International Wills Amanda (2010) Recycling Mystery: Bioplastic. earth911.com. Ceresana Research. "Ceresana Research - Market Study Bioplastics". Ceresana.com. Petkewich, R. (2003). "Technology Solutions: Microbes manufacture plastic from food waste". Environmental Science & Technology
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

To the claim of bio-plastic containing metals such as lead and cobalt, this is only for specific types of plastic, and not all release these toxins. I would also like to point out to my opponent that the source he use is clearly outdated and was posted over thirty years ago. This would bring up the point that bio-plastic would have been scientifically altered to reduce the emissions of such carcinogens, and still does not make his point of traditional plastics being superior as the plastics still do the same thing they do now, and that it nothing but sit on the surface of the earth polluting the environment. It is also important to notice the other alternative strategies that are being implemented in plastic production, via being powered by elimination of the fermentation step and utilizing food waste for a source of energy. (Petkewich 2003) To the argument of the reduction of certain products in order to create more corn and such, I would like to point out that currently traditional plastics use non-renewable sources that simply cannot be recreated once used for the item, and currently humans rely on these resources for many more important things such as gasoline, energy, and so on. Although certain food prices may go up, this would imply that other products which are essential to everyday life would continue to live on and perhaps even reduce the prices due to lower demand of traditional plastics. For the recycling topic, I would like to request evidence that backs your point of biodegradable plastics having no recycling programs. This means that I want to see that as of current day, there are no recycling programs, and not as of 5 years ago. I disagree with your claim that traditional plastics are superior in quality as there is no backup towards that claim, as there are several bio-plastics that have similar if not exact properties that traditional plastics obtain. The only fact that is true is that bio-plastics are less produced, and cannot be used in such massive quantities as traditional plastics are. Another asset of bio-plastic is the relatively newly investigated property of it being combined with other organic wastes, therefore eliminating a much larger amount of what was thought to be nonrecoverable solid waste. And again, different plastics mean different properties. References Petkewich, R. (2003). "Technology Solutions: Microbes manufacture plastic from food waste". Environmental Science & Technology, http://pubs.acs.org... And again, I would like to thank con for accepting to this debate and being a formidable opponent. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into arguing on this topic, and I apologize for the short time limit that was put on this debate.
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

In accordance with the claim that bio-plastics may require several years to decompose in the environment, this does not make any difference between regular plastic and bio-plastic, more of a consistency between types of plastics. And the possibility of an animal having a decomposition of the plastic inside the body is better than having regular plastic sit inside the body and simply kill or impair the animal in general. Also, bio-plastic would regularly be decomposed into normally consumed items such as carbon, carbon dioxide, water, biomass, and so on. This would regularly mean that this would not harm the animal if such a thing happens. To your claim of traditional plastics being economically viable to continue at least until it has become unsustainable to do so shows how imperfect the traditional plastics may be, and they will have a due date for becoming a bad option for use. Because bio-plastics are made from starch, from food items such as corn, this would influence food production, however, because corn is such a expendable product in the food market, it would not effect it entirely if growth of corn were more encouraged for bio-plastic. Your previous claim about recycling can also prove to be invalid, mainly because currently, roughly 200 million tons of plastic is created in the world annually, and little is recycled. In 2008 plastic waste was at 33.6 million tons in the United States, and only 2.2 million tons (6.5%) was recycled, and the majority of the rest was either burned or discarded in landfills. However, recycling is not only for tradition plastics and can be implemented in bio-plastic such as PLA. Here are the sources I have used over the past rounds in the debate. Garthe, James W., and Paula D. Kowal. "The Chemical Composition of Degradable Plastics." Pennsylvania State University. Hennessey, Jaime J. "Scientists Fear Chemical in Plastic Could Be Harmful." ABC News. 6 July 2006. Kahn, Michael. "Common Plastics Chemical Linked to Human Diseases." Reuters. 16 Sept. 2008. Knoblauch, Jessica A. "The Environmental Toll of Plastics." Environmental Health News. 2 July 2009. Kovacs, Betty, and Melissa C. Stoppler. "Plastic." MedicineNet. Roan, Shari. "Bisphenol A Exposure in Womb Affects Girls' Behavior - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Oct. 2011. Shelby, Michael. NTP-CERHR Monograph On the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A. National Toxicology Program - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.
Biodegradable Plastics are superior to any other plastic.

Thanks for conceding on my point [1.1 - 1.2] “the effects of chemicals such as BPA have little effect on the human body, or almost none…” I would now try to persuade you that the others are equally invalid. 6.0 Artificial estrogenic exposures 6.1 First, I would refer you back to point 1.2 where I dispute the method of administration 6.2 It's also important to keep in mind that BPA and other chemicals leach out of the mostly upon heating or when the plastic becomes old, flaky, and cracked. 6.3 The WHO also assess that most of the BPA consumed pass out through urination. Justin Teeguarden also confirms the results and adds that much of the animal studies are not relevant as level of BPA exposure are much higher (Teeguarden JG. et al, 2011) 6.3 Besides, the entire discussion isn't necessarily even relevant since there are other plastics other than recycle code 3,6,7 where there's little evidence to say that harmful chemicals will leach out. Indeed most plastics used to store food is 5 where it is relatively safe. 7.0 Environmental Issues 7.1 Since you agree that bio-plastics could take several years, the proposition that plastics harm animals is valid since to chock an animal it does not take several years likewise to block the windpipe of animals, you do not need it to block for several years. 7.2 Decomposition within the animal, seriously? First the animal would most likely pass the foreign object out of their body by then, second, normally we do not want a generally un-absorbent object to change into absorbent substance which could potentially harm the body. 8.0 Economics 8.1 Since you concede that bio-plastic is more expensive to produce, I would not provide evidences supporting my claim. 8.2 Your argument that bio-plastic would be cheaper as technology evolves might be true, but we are purely speculating without basis. 8.3 current demand and supply for traditional plastics shows that traditional plastics trump by being economically viable to continue using it at least until it has become unsustainable to do so. To invest into bio-plastics (which may end up being economically unfeasible) means we would lose our economic advantage over countries which choose not to do so. 8.4 Most bio-plastic are made from starch. This means that the prices of plastic would directly influence food production. Should demand for plastic rise faster than food, we would see an inflation of food prices. While this may not seem much, as Americans food consumption occupies a low percentage of our income expenditure, to many in the poorer countries, this might mean starvation. 9..0 Given the dateline is fast approaching, I would reserve my argument about technology in the next round. (I do feel 12h as being rather short after coming back home) References Teeguarden JG, Calafat AM, Ye X, Doerge DR, Churchwell MI, Gunawan R, Graham MK. (2011) Twenty-four hour human urine and serum profiles of bisphenol a during high-dietary exposure, Toxicol Sci. 2011 Sep;123(1):48-57. Epub 2011 Jun 24.
Resolved: Gun Ban in the US

IntroductionThis will be for missmozart, as we agreed to debate, and it happended to be this topic. It's been around 2 months since I debated a gun debate, and I like doing this topic, so I will be doing it right now. In this debate, the voting standards will be the opt in standards, look here: . https://docs.google.com...Full Resolution: Resolved: In the United States, guns/firearms should be bannedRules1. No forfeiting, if you forfeit then you lose, becuase there will be a glitch. You can say, "Pass this round", and pass the round, the main point is that I don't want this to touch the glitch. So if you forfeit, and make a glitch, you lose. 2. No trolling, as I don't want debates with no-moderated votes. So if you troll like vi_spex, you lose the debate. 3. No kritiks or no semantics in the debate. If you use semantics, or kritiks, you lose the debate.4. There can't be more than 30 sources in each round, or else it will be called as source-spamming, which is not allowed.5. No source wars, meaning the debate should not only be about sources, and refuting them only in the debate.6. All arguments must be posted in the debate. The debate text, not the comments, forums, or google docs. Sources can be posted in an external link.7. No new arguments in the last round (Arguments count as contentions, not rebuttals or defense, or those things)8. If you break these rules, you will be granted an AUTOMATIC loss. Structure1. Rules from Con/ Arguments from Pro2. Arguments from Con/ Rebuttals from Pro3. Rebuttals from Con/ Defense from Pro4. Defense from Con/ Rebuttal of Defense from Pro and Conclusion5. Rebuttal of Defense from Con and Conclusion/ Pro waives. DefinitionsGuns: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise [1]. Ban: officially or legally prohibit (something) [2]. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
when it comes to diplomacy big guns work the best

As the BoP is on Pro, I shall not post any arguments till Pro posts theirs. By standard DDO maxims, I shall provide definitions of the terms:Diplomacy - the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad Big - of considerable size or extent.Gun - a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise. Best - of the most excellent or desirable type or quality. All definitions from the New Oxford Dictionary of English.
I will win the debate

you will lose this debate for several reasons 1. these games are no fun if there are so few rounds. 2. You provide no warrant as to why you will win this debate, an argument's basic structure is claim/warrant/impact and honestly you have none. 3. I am the only person in this debate who has actually debated any, so the vote must go to me. *side note*I had five minutes in my allotted time to write this, this debate is by no means considerable as fun. so you lose, and I win.
Being Racist is okay

All right…I'll play the devil's advocate. Racist: is one who believes that inherent differences among the various human races determine inferiority or superiority. The reason why it is OK to be a racist is the same reason why it is OK to believe in anything. Racism by definition is a belief, and like all beliefs, a person is also entitled to his belief that some races are inferior to others, regardless of weather any of us disagree with them. People have the right to believe in anything they want to believe in, despite how absurd, unusual, stupid, ignorant, or ridiculous that belief may be. So long as they don't attack anyone or harm anybody I really couldn't care less what they believe in. My opponent may argue that racism may lead to violence, however committing a violent act against another race is not a necessity required to be racist. A racist can live a happy life believing that a particular race is inferior to another, while at the same time not harming anyone from the "inferior" race, that belief alone would qualify him to be a racist, even though he did not commit any violence. In addition, if violence in the name of racism is committed, it is the "violence" that should be punished, not the belief. I will base this on several contentions: 1)The extra punishment of any racist belief that may be"thought" during one's illegal activities violates one's freedom of thought: Once you step into the realm of punishing people for neurons that gather at different parts of the brain, then you have truly taken the Justice System, and turned it into a clown shop. To say that I should get an extra punishment because I "thought" something while I was committing violence is truly absurd. The violence should be punished, not the thoughts. 2)The extra punishment of ones racist beliefs may also violate one's freedom of religion, in clear violation of the separation of church and state. Some religions are arguably racist, and thus, if punished by the government, will violate one's right to believe in whatever religious belief he or she wishes to believe. 3)Punishments that do not include the prosecution for one's racist beliefs are already sufficient. For example murder, rape, theft, and vandalism have already been illegal and subject to persecution without the need to enact "hate crimes." Just because these crimes may still happen does not, in any way justify violating one's freedom of thought and religion. Racists can believe whatever they want to believe. So long as they don't harm anyone, it's OK. Now you try! ↕`╓▒╩─ï¿½║
Should GEO's (Geneticly Engineered Organisms) Be released into the environment

"But yes I think animal testing can be a bit cruel but mice really. Mice actualy cause problems all the time so do rats and other rodents. This is why they use lab rats instead of humans. Can you imagine the pain of being help down and having to be chopped up and having stuff injected into you you'll probably think but actualy do. But again ok they were mice but they were put way past their body limits instead of slowly devolving this over the years."I never actually brought up the issue of animal cruelty by genetic engineering. The mice example was to point out how GE could produce unforseen side effects, which is why we shouldnt take the chance of releasing them into the enviroment."Now if you could create a monster/GEO with the abilities of a large amount of dangerous animals you could create a super animal that can easy dispatch enemy soldiers quickly and silently. Now this is quite effective if you could implement a kill switch as well incase one were to go rogue. This would save time and soldiers. Now yes yes the price of making these and them programming them. But intact they could turn tables with in any war."Interesting idea, however i dont think any 'super animal' could stand to the ever so rapid advancement in weaponry. It may have worked a couple of centuries ago, but definately not in the modern age. Either way it doesn't bear much relevance to the topic at hand.
Should GEO's (Geneticly Engineered Organisms) Be released into the environment

Well if you think about it removing deer from one habitat could disrupt another and completely fistful the balance then you would be in another situation. But yes I think animal testing can be a bit cruel but mice really. Mice actualy cause problems all the time so do rats and other rodents. This is why they use lab rats instead of humans. Can you imagine the pain of being help down and having to be chopped up and having stuff injected into you you'll probably think but actualy do. But again ok they were mice but they were put way past their body limits instead of slowly devolving this over the years. I know I've probably lost this debate but still I think GEOs would be affective in warfare as well. You see my main question of GEO's would be how would they change warfare from today and how will they impact the future?. Now I'd like to know the options from any one reading. Now my information about this is a small but extended. This could effect warfare at a huge price but it could improve at a small amount. Now if you could create a monster/GEO with the abilities of a large amount of dangerous animals you could create a super animal that can easy dispatch enemy soldiers quickly and silently. Now this is quite effective if you could implement a kill switch as well incase one were to go rogue. This would save time and soldiers. Now yes yes the price of making these and them programming them. But intact they could turn tables with in any war.
Should GEO's (Geneticly Engineered Organisms) Be released into the environment

Now if you think about it GEO'S could possibly interbreed which is a 50-50 out come of good or bad but if you think about it some animals are going extinct. Now if some animals breed that aren't meant to it could possible create a newer more profiting hybrid of the extinct animal. Also you can use DNA to bring back extinct animals like certain frogs and horses and other animals back through GEO technology, think about that. If tigers were to go extinct you would probably be sad but through Genetically engineering and DNA of tigers you could recreate the tigers and possible make then more compatible to the environment in which they live in at the current moment. Think about this if a tigers scenes were boosted a ton would poachers so easily capture them and kill them. What if you made it to a point were they could grow fur you could shear them instead of killing. Some of the new advancements could be extremely helpful in other ways as well like if you look at this one city where radiation killed off all of the organisms that lived there but in that process the genetics of two horses combined to form an extinct horse and some of this happened to the trees. Some of these things are quite positive but you also forget one big con in the colloquy but sadly I can't tell you it would work to heavily against me. Some enviremonts are being over run by certain animals like deer for instance some times they don't have enough space in the forest so they eventually find a way into the city... Why? Because there may not be enough preditors to keep population down. So tinker a bit here tinker a bit there you could take out the current preditors and enhance their abilities to make sure that the population is just right. You could even remodel the body to be swifter but the stomacoh to be the right size. Things likes these are what make Genetically Engineering so good and not a bad thing.
Should GEO's (Geneticly Engineered Organisms) Be released into the environment

I will be arguing that Genetically engineered organisms should not be released into the environment. 1. Firstly, genetic engineering is a fairly new science, and we haven't yet learned the risks and dangers associated with it. If we were to release these organisms into the environment, they will disseminate throughout by interbreeding with other non modified organisms, creating inbreeds and thus polluting natural gene pools with contrived and manipulated variations. These new variations can be detrimental to the health and well being of the ecosystem, and by then we will be unable to retract any of the subjects we introduced. 2. You argued that the GMOs should be released into the environment because they provide us with a lot of benefit, however that alone does not necessitate the exemption of them into the environment. We can reap the benefits of these subjects by keeping them in controlled areas and labs, as we have done with insulin producing bacteria. introducing them into the wild is a non factor.