BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

I would just like to remind Con that we are not arguing the severity of GMOs, but whether when companies are using them they are letting the public know. In the brief time that GMOs have been around there have been many controversies regarding the health and safety of the organisms. According to PublicMed.org, GMOs have had serious health effects. These health risks include hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. If given a choice, most consumers would want to avoid these side effects. Unfortunately most foods containing GMOs don't specify that they contain them. This argument is simply saying that consumers deserve to be aware of these health risks.
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

Of course NonGMOProject say that; spreading fear of GM crops is their job. They are not a scientific organisation. If that's where you go for information on this topic, then it's not surprising that your views are so discordant with the empirical evidence and scientific consensus. Whenever a country has banned growing GM crops (of course, they still import them even if they don't grow them!), it has been a political decision that is not based on science. That's why, whenever a government moves to ban this safe technology, the peak scientific bodies in the country always protest. Scotland is just one example: http://www.theguardian.com...
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

According to The NonGMOProject.org, in the short time that Engineers have been creating GMOs there have been numerous negative health effects both on the environment and on humans . More than 60 well developed countries view GMOs as harmful and have begun to ban them. These countries include Australia, Japan and all of the countries in the European Union. In the USthe Government has deemed GMOs safe due to studies done by major corporations such as McDonalds. These corporations make an enormous profit from GMOs and are also conducting the experiments . The problem is, most of the foods we consume on a daily basis have GMOs in it without our knowing. The belief that all you have to do is buy GMO free food is easier said than done.
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that GMOs are less safe than non-GMOs. The claim that we are exposed to deadly GMOs in food is patently absurd. There is a strong scientific consensus on this issue. Every reputable science organisation in the world agrees that GMOs are as safe as their non-GMO counterparts. Second, if you don't want to eat GMOs then you can buy certified non-GMO or certified Organic food. Problem solved.
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

Unknowingly we are exposed to deadly GMOs pr genetically modified organisms when we eat at fast food chains such as McDonalds. When we dine in places such as McDonalds, we eat meat that was harmed and lived horrific lives. As Americans and as human beings I think that it is our right to know exactly what these corporations are doing to our food. I think that there should be something telling us that the food contain deadly GMOs our that the meat is treated inhumanly so we can decide for ourselves what we consume. I think that this small action would help lead us on our way to getting rid of GMOs and factory farming
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

Labeling foods that contain allergens is a good thing because there are negative health effects for some people. The same is not true for GMOs. You can cherry-pick information from unreliable sources all you like, but the fact remains that there is a strong scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Read the AAAS statement again, esp. par 2, 4, 5. In any case, 'GMO' is just a blanket term that covers all products deveoped using a certain breeding method. Therefore, a 'GMO' label only tells you something about the process used to develop the product. It tells you nothing about what is actually in the food. You are free to buy certified non-GMO. The fact that it is overpriced, of limited supply, and in no way safer than GMO is your problem.
Beauty is better than brains

Thank you for offering this debate! I will assume you carry the BoP as the Instigator, and as you have not specified. In this debate, I will clearly show that beauty is better than brains. However, I will ask that voters make their decisions with BoP in mind, and using ONLY the arguments found here, disregarding their personal convictions as to which is better.If Con will allow it, I will also assume some definitions:Beauty: Physical features generally understood to arouse or incite feelings of attraction.Better: Of more usefulness or greater utility in life.Brains: Intelligence, or cognitive ability.As there has been no specification, I will not assume. Instead I will wait until my opponent has made opening arguments before I begin. I would also ask for any clarification in how rounds are set up from Con. Otherwise, I look forward to a good debate!
Beauty is better than brains

Hello! This is my first debate and everything, so I'm not quite sure on all the details and such. Sorry I haven't specified. My first argument that beauty is not better than brains, is that beauty is natural, therefore, it is not a achievement of any kind, and beautiful people shouldn't be acknowledged for their beauty. Besides, the true meaning of 'beauty' is undefined, as different people will think differently of the definition, beauty. However, brains are much more defined than beauty. Beauty does not last forever, while brains, and ability do. Once old age hits, will beauty still exist for those? On the other hand, brains will last forever (this, of course, is disregarding the fact of any disease of forgetfulness, etc)
Talkativeness

There are many reasons why many people think that school should be a place of strict learning, with the classes being the main priority. However, even with schools in the situation that they are in, where the kids talk about random things during class time, kids are still very stressed with homework, sports, extra curricular activities, jobs, etc. Sometimes they may not even have a chance outside of school to talk to fellow classmates and communicate and develop their social skills, simply because they are too busy. In February 2014, a survey was conducted to see the stress levels of adults vs. high school kids, and according to the statistics, kids felt more stressed than most adults (. http://www.apa.org...). Some kids may talk because they know if they focus on their homework and school all of they time, they may have a anxiety attack. School is a place of learning, yes, but if the kids are so stressed about school that they aren't able to even learn, what good are we doing? Talking to their peers may also keep them from getting bored and sleeping. This may help them learn a bit more than sitting around listening to a teacher or working on an assignment for hours on end.
Talkativeness

I understand what you are saying and I realize careers do need a mastery of speech to them and I see how talking can improve ones verbal skill. Still talking in class is not a thing that is supposed to be done at least not to the extent of talking about nonsense that does NOT apply to the task, assignment, etc at hand. May I remind you we are discussing talking in school not in the general rule its listed under education not misc. If a child wanted to improve verbal skill might I suggest they just join a debate team or a intellectual writing class wouldn't you say the debate we are having right now is a good example of us improving our skill of debate? So yes talking can improve verbal skill and verbiage but we all know too well the annoying voices in a school classroom are a bad thing.
Talkativeness

I see the point that you make, and how it can be disruptive to students who are trying to prepare for the future. However, even though you may see it as nonsense, and think that whatever it is they are talking about shouldn't be talked about in school, conversing with your peers can help you in the future also, no matter the topic. They are practicing the language they use and with each sentence they are improving their social skills for the future. Some would say social skills are very important in the future, even the most important thing for your future, as it helps you convey what you mean and helps your master your verbal communication. However it mostly depends on the path you go on. Some careers don't require rigorous schooling, but instead require a mastery of speech.
Talkativeness

I am against talkativeness in school to answer your question sorry for the confusion. Talkativeness as described by dictionary.com inclined to talk a great deal. Talkativeness described by Websters dictionary tending to talk alot or enjoy having conversations with people. Now as i am not opposed to a good conversation but i am opposed to a conversation not in topic of school such as speaking out in class or starting a random chit chat. In the cafeteria i have no problem but while in the context of the classroom i do. I myself am a student in a school and for a debate project i have been assigned this topic as practice i challenged you. As we speak here i have people around me talking about nothing to do with their topic.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Part One: Right of Choice The biggest problem with your first argument is this statement "In this case, since there should be a freedom of choice, gay marriage should be legal. " You are not only claiming that gay marriage should be legal, but you are arguing that it should be legal because there should be a freedom of choice. First you must argue for a freedom of choice before you argue for gay marriage. Then it is argued "for people who prefer living with someone of the same-sex who they love, if gay marriage is illegal where they live, they often have a mentally tough and challenging time choosing between marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not marrying at all. " This is may be true (no evidence was presented), but when making a decision about making something legal, it is important to think about the society as a whole and not just about the 2% of the population that are homosexual. Homosexuality is actually dangerous to the society as a whole. It spreads disease, there are higher sexual molestation rates among them. And by the way, the arguments my opponent has used could literally be used to support "voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc. ? (. https://carm.org......). Homosexuality is dangerous whether people want to admit it or not. Link: exodusglobalalliance. org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60. php Part Two: Right to Love It was then said that "Secondly, there is a right to love. No one can stop you from mentally loving someone. " No actually, there is no right to love. My opponent hasn't even defined love yet so this whole argument is somewhat meaningless. And it doesn't seem like the majority of the homosexual community actually knows what love is (1 Cor 13 is my definition of love). Statistics show that "83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. " Doesn't sound like love to me. See link above for the evidence of this fact. And just out of curiosity. .. do you think I should have special rights because I am a Christian? Part Three: This is your Life It was then said that "Lastly, this is your life. A person has a life, with their own body. " My response to that is who says? Prove that statement and don't just keep asserting things without any justification. What gives a person the right to do whatever they want? But the most disturbing statement made was this: "Part of what you have to do to legalize gay marriage, is to temporarily accept the world without judgment, so that you can vision these perspectives. " As a Christian I know that homosexuality is a sin and what you are asking me to do is to completely ignore my moral values to give the minority special privileges. And the worse part is that I know that homosexuality will cause harm to society but you want me to completely remove my knowledge of these matters merely because you believe they should have rights. I don't think so.
The Octuplets' Mother

Your right, my fault. Thank you con for clarifying what we are arguing. Much thanks. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Con has pointed out that because I gave my opinion that Suleman is stupid for endangering the lives of her children just to get public attention I justified that she should not have these children. Really? Lets give an example. Lets say a guy buys a really stupid car like the Pontiac Aztec. Should he have not bought that car? It is one of the ugliest cars and has horrible reliability and performance, but that was his LEGAL choice as a human being. Nadya Suleman SHOULD have had those 8 children because it is her right as a mother and as a woman to have babies. Why else would their be the female species? Then there is the fact that the state should allow to keep her kids away from her is the right of the state. Why else would we have a government. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So based on the fact that she can do what she wants (as long as it is legal and ethical) she SHOULD have had those 8 kids. We know it is legal because there is no law restricting the number of children we have We can't base it on ethics because that differs from person to person. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In conclusion, she hasn't broken any law and even though we might consider her stupid and wrong, it is her life and she didn't break any law so if she wants to have 8 children let her. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I rest my case.
The Octuplets' Mother

Firstly, I would like to start off saying that this debate is not revolving solely on ethics--that was just one of the points. It is also Pro's job to not only disprove my points, but to also prove that Nadya Suleman is right in having these children. "We do not know what Con believes is ethical or what is not...I on the otherhand used the exact definition of the dictionary to define what is ethical and what is not. It clearly shows that Nadya Suleman IS being ethical." Similarly, you cannot create moral standards and decide what is right and wrong; everyone sees things differently. Simply providing a definition will not make one thing ethical if it is or isn't. However, once again, this debate is not based on only ethics, but about Nadya Suleman, the Octuplets' Mother (in case you haven't read the title AND the introduction). "This is a stupid decision her part, but this is not unethical." It is my opponent's job to state that Nadya Suleman SHOULD have had these kids (and why). However, the statement above contradicts what Pro is supposed to show. "Having alot of children does not mean she is going to neglect them." It does not mean that she has been taking great care of them, either. You cannot assume that she has been being a good parent to her children. "Looking at her history, she has taken care of past children, why would these be treated any different." This statement has no sources or proof that it is true. "They will probally get even better treatment." Once again, this is an assumption. "My best friend is a test tube baby and he is doing fine." Nice to know, but we aren't debating about test tube babies. We are debating about Nadya Suleman. "That is a common fact and it is a perfectly ethical to having a baby using Vitro Ferilization." This is an entirely different subject that can be decided upon in a different debate. However, we are proving our sides about Nadya Suleman. "This woman is stupid and doesn't think..." Exactly my point; Pro has said it himself: the octuplets' mother is irresponsible for having these children. "Safety: Studies suggest that in vitro fertilization is safe. A recent study covered nearly 1,000 children conceived through these methods in 5 European countries and found that the children, monitored from birth to age 5 years, were as healthy as children conceived naturally." Funny how you forgot to leave out the last sentence of that paragraph: however, other studies have found a slightly increased risk of genetic disorders in children conceived through assisted reproductive technologies. (http://www.emedicinehealth.com...) I will repeat what I have said earlier: "This is a debate on the mother's decision to have these 8 children." My opponent has failed to show the "Pro" sides to Nadya Suleman's decision.
The Octuplets' Mother

Con says that raising 14 kids on welfare is not ethical. Really? How can we base ethics on what con decides is ethical or not. We do not know what Con believes is ethical or what is not. I on the otherhand used the exact definition of the dictionary to define what is ethical and what is not. It clearly shows that Nadya Suleman IS being ethical. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Con says that Suleman is using the money to get more kids, when she can barely take care of the ones she alread has. Really? This woman is old enough to make her own decisions and if she chooses to spend money on having more kids that is her choice and that is not unethical. This is a stupid decision her part, but this is not unethical. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Con says the children will most likely be neglected. Really? The first 6 were NOT neglected and she is taking care of the new octuplets as of right now. Having alot of children does not mean she is going to neglect them. I have seen mothers having normal births of one child neglecting their children. This even has no effect on weather she will neglect her children. Looking at her history, she has taken care of past children, why would these be treated any different. They will probally get even better treatment. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Con says that the first the first test tube baby died at age 25 and that these children will not be healthy. Really? Because from the same article Con used it says this: Safety: Studies suggest that in vitro fertilization is safe. A recent study covered nearly 1,000 children conceived through these methods in 5 European countries and found that the children, monitored from birth to age 5 years, were as healthy as children conceived naturally. Note: Louise Brown is still ALIVE . http://www.emedicinehealth.com... My best friend is a test tube baby and he is doing fine. If it was so dangerous the government wouldn't allow this treatment in the first place. That is a common fact and it is a perfectly ethical to having a baby using Vitro Ferilization. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This woman is stupid and doesn't think, but she is not UNETHICAL!
The Octuplets' Mother

:D Firstly, it is your responsibility to not only disprove my points but also to prove that she is ethical and was right to have eight kids on top of the six she already had. It isn't ethical to raise fourteen kids on welfare and suck the money out of your whole state, already knowing that you're having trouble raising the six you already have. She wasn't thinking about how her children would feel or how she would provide for them. It would be one thing if she decided to have all of these children naturally and with knowing how she would support them. Now, I think that most of this is all about the attention. Suddenly, Suleman is appearing all over TV stations in interviews, magazines, and websites. She loves the attention obviously, because she keeps appearing. "The Southern California mother of octuplets receives $490 a month in food stamps and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal assistance, her publicist confirmed Monday evening. " "John Jain, founder of Santa Monica Fertility Specialists, criticized the decision to implant so many embryos, saying: "I do think that this doctor really stepped outside the guidelines in a very extreme manner, and as such, put both the mother and children at extra high risk of disability and even death. " "Suleman said she had six embryos implanted for each of her pregnancies. The octuplets were a surprise result of her last set of six embryos, she said, explaining she had expected twins at most. Two of the embryos evidently divided in the womb. " "An in-vitro procedure typically costs between $8,000 and $15,000. Asked on NBC how she was able to afford the treatments, Suleman said she had saved money and used some of the more than $165,000 in disability payments she received after being injured in a 1999 riot at a state mental hospital where she worked. " [. http://www.foxnews.com...] This just proves that she is using money to get more kids when she can barely take care of the ones she already has. These children will most likely be neglected and I pray that their health will be good in the future. It is unethical. "The term test tube baby is often used to refer to children conceived with this technique. The first so-called test tube baby, Louise Brown, reached age 25 years in 2003. She was born in England. " [Taken from . http://www.emedicinehealth.com...] The first child conceived from this only lived to be 25, about 50 years earlier than the average death rate. How is all of this still right? "How is not wanting to kill off a certain number of embryos unethical. To me that IS ethical. " Okay, but these children are going to have to suffer through risky health, a neglectful parent who spends all of the money on raising MORE children, and they will be living off of food stamps (taken from taxpayers…).
The Octuplets' Mother

First of all, here is the definition of unethical: UNETHICAL Adjective morally wrong . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Con says that Nadya Suleman is being unethical by having all of these children. Really? Considering the definition of being unethical. There is nothing here that says having 14 kids is unethical because there is no moral teaching saying having kids is wrong. Since we are talking about morals, Nadya did say that she did NOT want a selective reduction, which would reduce the number of babies she would have had. How is not wanting to kill off a certain number of embryos unethical. To me that IS ethical. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm not denying the fact that this lady is stupid and should NOT keep any of her kids, but this is an issue about ethics. Ethics is what we believe in and differs between everyone. Killing someone is unethical. Having too many babies is just plain dumb. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Considering all of this, yes it is ethical to have the number of babies she did.
The Octuplets' Mother

I am sure that you all have heard of Nadya Suleman. The mother of octuplets as well as 6 other kids. This is a debate on the mother's decision to have these 8 children. Is this ethical? She already had 6 children living in the home shared with her parents, a small 3 bedroom home. Suleman chose, with the knowledge that she would need government assistance in order to care for their lives, to have embryos artifically placed into her. Artifical fertilization. Such large births can result tragically. My real point is, what kind of mother would do this to her children?