BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetically modified organisms' benefits outweigh the harm

However, I was a little confused on Con's statement that "Since my opponent hasn't given his argument yet, I'm just going to state reasons why GMOs are beneficial. " I shouldn't have been expected to make arguments, as the first round was for "accepting and defining" I will now state my main arguments. P1. GM crops cause all sorts of problems A. Herbicide resistant crops increase the use of herbicide and create herbicide resistant weeds. Herbicide resistant crops simply encourage people to use more herbicides. Herbicides are bad for the environment and people as well. Herbicide has been linked to everything from kidney disease to birth defects to cancer. Additionally, extensive use of herbicide just creates herbicide resistant weeds. According to top researchers, numerous weeds are evolving to be resistant to herbicide, and the number is set to increase. Promoting extensive use of herbicides just leads to stronger and more powerful weeds. B. Insect resistant crops creates predator-less crops that can harm local ecosystems. We have already seen the damage that invasive species can do to ecosystems. They are so deadly and devastating because they have no natural predators and can grow unchecked. When we genetically engineer crops to be resistant to insects and disease, we simply create the equivalent of invasive species- species that can completely grow unchecked and overcome ecosystems. Sources: . http://www.truth-out.org... . http://gmwatch.org... P2. GM crops only exist to benefit big businesses and can do nothing but harm for the consumer. A. Big business creating our food is already a problem. Numerous whistle-blowing documentaries have been released in recent years exposing the horrors of factory farms. GM crops take this to the next level. They are organisms manufactured for and by big business. They exists solely to make money, not serve local farmers or people, as Con would have you believe. We know that big business will do anything, no matter how deadly, just to make a profit. B. There is no transparency in GM crops. GMO manufacturers have the right to patent their GMOs. They can do whatever they want with them, and have no requirement to transparency. Us, the consumers, will soon have no idea what kind of GMO's are in our foods and what they do. They don't even want us to know what which foods have GMO's. The industry has recently spent over 50 million dollars fighting against a California bill that would require GE labeling. Sources: . http://www.beyondpesticides.org... . http://rt.com... Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I was not able to say all of my arguments. I will post my last arguments and counter-plan next round.
Eating meat in the developed world is morally wrong.

This Debate is About Eating Meat not About Animal Suffering It is not necessary to cause any pain or suffering to animals to eat them. Voters can wholly agree that animals should not be treated poorly or put through unnecessary pain. This has nothing to do with the resolution and pain and suffering is a separate issue all together. From a more utilitarian perspective eating meat contributes to the benefit of highly conscious humans and no pain or suffering is necessary for the animals [2]. With a large benefit on one hand, and no need for a loss of the benefit to animals, eating meat is most definitely moral. “We have been designed by evolution to eat meat and other animal foods[3].” It contains a high amount of protein, essential vitamins and minerals and is essential to a low carb diet. It’s natural to enjoy eating meat since we have evolved to eat it and it contributes to a high level of enjoyment to virtually every culture on the planet. Eating Meat is Natural As Pro has conceded. The assertion that farming animals is not natural does nothing to prove that pain and suffering is necessary to eat meat. He has basically stated that farming animals is wrong but this is an objection to farming and not eating meat. He has all but suggested that hunting animals would be okay which would make various forms of hunting (and eating the meat) that limit suffering morally acceptable. Pro did not Define Morality or Offer a Context Pro did not establish a moral context to discuss this or point to a specific moral code making the resolution very difficult to support. Many descriptive moral relativist positions would accept that eating meat is moral since it widely accepted in our culture [1]. It may be moral under certain cultures but not in others. - The arguments presented rest on a false assumption. Animal suffering is required to eat meat. This is simply not true. I would like to see farm animals treated a lot better but this is a separate issue all together. Animals could be raised under good conditions avoiding pain and suffering leading to a painless death. Pro’s arguments just do not address the resolution. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://authoritynutrition.com...
Eating meat in the developed world is morally wrong.

Thank you for accepting. I think the argument is quite simple on my behalf. To say 'eating meat is morally wrong' means that, compared to not eating meat, it is immoral. Non-human mammals are conscious, fellow creatures. They feel pain and suffer no different from us, and we put them through hell. All this in the name of pleasure, for it is not needed: science has demonstrated that meat is not necessary in the optimum human diet. And so, causing suffering for pleasure is wrong in anyone's eyes is it not? That is my stance. People like to argue that it is natural. I have two contentions with this: Firstly that hunting animals is natural, not farming them. Secondly, that morality has no place in nature. It is a creation of man. We have been blessed with the ability to contemplate our 'nature'. We have come up with the idea of morality, which means to attempt to lessen the suffering of others to the greatest extent,whilst maintaining ones own life. Making others suffer, when it is not longer needed, is morally wrong. What I need is someone to explain how causing a fellow creature to suffer/die is acceptable in the name of pleasure. Most meat-eaters I talk too admit its wrong and accept that they don't care enough for the animals, and care more for there own pleasure (I can be an annoying friend). But you are arguing that its actually morally acceptable, not just that you don't care. I really want to understand this view, that's why I made this debate.
Why is this a thing

No is what stupid is that you have to give up your phone number. Of course their policy says they don't sell and give your information to any 3rd parties. But for anyone who believes that nonsense I have some beach front property on the moon I'll sell you for a good price. Websites cost money and take time to create and maintain, you really think someone out there just wants to do a bunch of skilled work for free. I don't see any advertisements on this site. So one wonders how they make any money? Perhaps selling your data. Either that or this is setup by the CIA to monitor opinions of political dissenters? :) Really no third option, one of those two has to be it undoubtedly :).
Newt Gingrich Would Be a Good President

Newt may want to cut taxes and that's a good idea if the person can carry out a good plan, Newts plan is not a good, there for he would not be a good president. I will explain why his plan is not good. According a new analysis, Gingrich's tax plan would reduce government revenue by a staggering $1.3 trillion -- or 35% -- in 2015, the first year the plan could be fully implemented. That means we would have a lot less money coming in. All those tax cuts mean the federal government would take in much less money. In order to balance the budget -- or get even remotely close -- government spending would have to be slashed by huge amounts. He's says he can balance the budget and promises so but he can't with the tax cut plan he has out. He would not be a good president because he promises things that do not add up. I agree with you but as you can see Gingrich's plan does not add up so this would not work with him as president. Newt is not taking the economy serious enough, with the biggest tax cut the biggest we have ever seen. It's not even realistic. Chronic national debt is not new. It ravaged Great Britain before the US Revolution and was one of the pressures behind it's colonization worldwide. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the problems associated with national debt and how its sinister tendrils could creep into the way of life of every citizen. Thomas Jefferson believed that the nation should never take on debt which it could not repay within 19 years, or in other words that the current generation has no right to burden the future generations with debt. Conclution Other reasons he will not be a good president Newt Has more Baggage then a woman going on vacation Frankly he would embarrass Americans and Republicans. . http://money.cnn.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Newt Gingrich Would Be a Good President

Newt Gingrich would be a very good president. He has a plan to cut taxes.Cutting taxes helps the economy because it lets working people keep more of THEIR money.Small businesses can expand and hire more workers witht these tax cuts. Newt Gingrich has a plan to create jobs and grow the economy.Not only does he have a plan, but he has done it before. Newt Gingrich would be a good president.Good luck on whoever accepts this debate!
We should not teach the controversy

Resolved: The school systems should not teach creationism along side of evolution. It is my opinion that evolution should be taught.First round is acceptance.Definitions Please no semantics. These are the definitions that I will be talking about in the debate: Creationism: The literal story of creation as found in Gen. 1 [1] Evolution: Two types Microevolution: Microevolution is defined as the change in the alleles of a species over a period of time. [2] Macroevolution: Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.[3] Teach the controversy: By this, I mean that the literal interpretation of Gen. 1 should be taugh along side of the ToE. Rules First round is acceptance only; No semantics (see above); Plagarism results in an automatic 7 points to the opponent _________________________________1. For the literal reading of Genesis, read it online at http://www.esvbible.org...;2. Talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org...3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
Learning to play percussion well is as hard if not harder than learing to play another instrument.

Well! If we're going to go into the "technical stuff", then didn't I "technically" say that "I CAN" -not DO- "see how the piano MIGHT BE" -not IS- "harder to be good at."? And hey, since we're being "technical", isn't the piano classified as a PERCUSSIVE instrument (hammers HITTING strings), meaning that every example you have given using the piano has only "technically" been further proving my point? I mean, I wasn't going to bring that up; but as we're being "technical". ------ Alright, now that we can be a little more sophisticated, I will discuss and argue the points made in your last statement. First of all, you say in your first paragraph that piano is more difficult than timpani and xylophone when talking about the number of notes being played at a time. This does not account for the complexity of rhythms played on the snare. Of course piano is going to have more complex chords and will use more notes at the same time. That is because it isn't possible to play as many notes on a xylophone or timpani. Any percussion instrument can have musicality and feeling; it just takes more effort and is harder to do in percussion. You discuss tuning the piano. "Tuning piano is harder because there are 88 keys on the keyboard. This means 88 separate tones. This is more than exists for timpani." It is also not necessary for a pianist to tune his piano before every song, using only a base note and his ear. Your main point thus far has been that the piano can be played using ten fingers. Hardly a satisfactory argument. You seem to have yourself under the impression that the piano uses ten notes all the time. This is not the case. In most piano pieces there will be times in which many fingers will be used, but there is also a larger section where there are runs or melodies using multiple fingers but at different times. This is not just in piano; other instruments including the flute, saxophone, or string instruments like the bass guitar, have many fingers being used in the process of playing. This doesn't mean it is harder to play this instrument; in fact quite the opposite. This just means that the player has easy access to the notes on these instruments, while it takes more effort to play the same thing on a xylophone or marimba. You repeated your statement that it is easy to play something from ear on a percussive instrument, so I will repeat my response. It might be easy to figure out what someone is playing, but it might be harder to actually play it. For example, "stroking a nine-stroke roll" is very hard to do; harder than, say, figuring out chords on a piano and then adding the melody. You can train yourself to notice melodies and chords in order to play any instrument. However, it takes tedious practice to get your hands to move as fast as a roll. ------ (You seem very intent on winning the debate, but don't show much interest in learning from it. Maybe if your mind frame was more open, you would see that things are never as limited as they first appear.)
Learning to play percussion well is as hard if not harder than learing to play another instrument.

Of course, learning to do anything "well" is going to be harder than just learning to do something else "not well." However, it is probably harder and takes more time to become really good at another instrument as opposed to becoming really good at percussion. I realize it takes a lot of effort and time to become good at percussion, but the meticulous detail that is necessary to become good at a lot of other instruments is much more difficult to master. This is why in general, percussionists take lessons to learn how to play, then eventually, they must develop the rest on their own. Also, one can teach him/her self percussion easier than other instruments. Looking at it realistically, it is probably easier for one to sit down and learn how to play the snare and different, "advanced" rythms well, rather than for someone to sit down and teach themselves how to play a wide variety of advanced music on say, the piano, for instance. The amount of skill needed to learn in order to play more complicated instruments well is higher. (I am going to stick with the example of piano, but other wind/brass/reed instruments probably apply.) In order to be considered "good," one must posses technical mastery that is more challenging than percussion in general. Being able to read music and play a possible 10 different keys all at once (sometimes more), know chord progressions, melody vs. bass, key signatures, sharps, flats, dynamics, musicality, rythm, etc., is extremely difficult to master, let alone just do. The intricate details and involvement of piano music is just simply more difficult to execute. Also, much more must be acheived to be "good" after this. After technical mastery, a good pianist (or other instrument comparable) has to learn to incorporate feeling, musicality, and tone into his/her music. This is much different than getting louder/softer, or faster/slower, as percussion is pretty limited to. I realize there is some musicality in percussion, however other instuments require much more skill and experience in this area. Overall, percussion can be learned through memorization - one can copy the rhythm played by another, and then add his/her own dynamics. However, other instruments - it is rare/next to impossible to sit down a piece and play it after hearing it. One must work at it much more vigorously in order to perfect it, and even once this occurs, it is still difficult to produce the same amount of feeling and musicality that a musician would like to achieve. (I am speaking from experience too. I have played music for over 9 years, and both of my parents are music teachers/directors, and both play instruments themselves.)
Learning to play percussion well is as hard if not harder than learing to play another instrument.

I am a percussionist and have recently had someone tell me that percussion is the easiest section in the band to play in. I was very appalled by this and told him that he was dead wrong. For one, percussion covers multiple instruments, including snare, timpani, xylophone, and other auxiliary instruments. Not only do the xylophone and timpani require you to be able to read music in both the treble and base clef, the snare requires you to be able to play complicated rhythms that one would not normally see for another instrument. Also the play a snare well, one must be able to stroke a roll or play with three mallets on the xylophone along with other various techniques needed in certain songs. I have also learned to play the bass guitar and know from experience that it was much easier to learn and play (3 years) than it was to learn to play the snare well (6 years).
Save the Sheridan Expressway!

New York City Mayor Andrew Coumo wants to remove one of New York City's most iconic expressways, The Sheridan Expressway (Interstate 895) in the Bronx, NY. If the governor moves forward with his plan, then this will only cause more and more traffic in the Bronx and even New York City, NY! I am from Long Island State, NY and I am highly against this plan because I am tired of having to go through the congested New York City streets to get to either The Bronx, Westchester, Connecticut, Upstate NY, New England, or Massachusetts to leave Long Island State and get across the Long Island Sound! It is too much time-consuming and traffic! Without the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) then there will be so much more traffic and it will only cause more trucks to use already congested Cross Bronx Expressway (Interstate 95), Bruckner Expressway (Interstate 278 & I-95), Trans-Manhattan Expressway (Interstate 95), Van Wyck/Whitestone Expressway (Interstate 678), Mid-Manhattan/Queens-Midtown/Horace Harding/Long Island Expressway (Interstate 495 New Jersey/NYC/LI), and New England Thruway (Interstate 95 Northern Bronx/Westchester/Western Connecticut). This is totally a very bad idea because if Sheridan Expressway is removed from the city then there will be a lot more traffic and it will cause lots of cars, trucks, vans, and buses to use already-congested bridges and tunnels, Expressways, Interstate Highways, County Highways, US Highways, and City Streets and City Roads. However we can all work together to defend the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) and oppose and stop Cumo's plan to remove one of the Bronx's most iconic expressways, The Sheridan Expressway (Interstate 895) because this highway was designed by Robert Moses (New York City and Long Island's Master Builder) who built Greater New York and Greater Long Island For The Future! Please join us and stop Cumo's worst mistake since the cancellation of the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge in the 1970's, and Save The Sheridan Expressway which defines the Bronx for what it is and not for money, and even extend The Sheridan Expressway (Interstate 895/I-895) to Westchester or at least North Bronx. Together we can all make New York City and Long Island like Greater New York and Greater Long Island Again! Thank You! Matty Iannielli. :-)
Europe is Superior to the U.S

Interest may be shown in comments. First round acceptance. Note to any potential takers that I am arguing in the general sense, that Europe is in fact superior to the United States. Example: -Politics-Lifestyle -Culture-Education-FreedomBy "Europe", I mean the European continent. Superior 1. greater in quality, quantity, etc. 2. of high or extraordinary worth, merit, etc. 3. higher in rank or status.a. of higher grade or quality. [1.] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Gun Control

Debating you seems pointless since all you do is post debate files. However I will continue since some of the viewers agree with me. While on the surface gun control seems to be a good thing, it ends up on hurting people. Criminals still have guns. Almost always violence will go up. In these countries where gun control has been implemented, there have been 57+ MILLION deaths. To use a debate term, "Impact Outweighs" You also talk about suicides. What about Japan, which has gun control and one of the highest suicide rates in the world. You can post all this evidence about how guns make children traumatized and such, but the bottom line is gun control has never worked and will never work.
Gun Control

Your arguments are based on the assumption that criminals will obey the law. This logic seems a little flawed if you ask me. If gun control laws are implemented (i.e. citizens are ordered to turn in their firearms) do you expect criminals to turns in their guns? I didn't think so. What would happen would be that law abiding citizens would not have guns to protect themselves from the criminals that do. As they say, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Just look at Australia. A little over a year ago, all citizens were forced to turn in their firearms. The results: homicides are up 32%, assaults are up 8.6%, and in the state of Victoria homicides with firearms are up 300%. What a success! In the UK, 92% of all home invasions are "hot burglaries" (people are inside the house when they are robbed), according to 19% in the US, according to Fox News. This is because the burglars do not need to scout out the homes and figure out when the people are not home. They just go right on in because they know they will not encounter resistance. Also, many of these recent and well-publicized public shootings have happened in "Gun-Free Zones". I guess the shooters missed the signs. You mentioned Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter. The campus was a gun free zone. I someone was carrying a concealed weapon maybe they could have stopped him before more lives were lost. Gun-Free Zones are a joke. Do really think that someone that wants to shoot up a public place will see a Gun-Free Zone sign and say, "Oh, gun free zone. Guess I can't shoot up this place." Also, Cho Seung-Hui's gun was illegally purchased. The two reasons we have gun rights in the first place are: 1. So citizens can protect themselves from violent people and 2. So citizens can protect themselves from tyrannical acts of government. I have already talked about the first and I will now move on to the second reason. Many people say that we can trust our government, but look at all of the great things that have happened when other countries put in gun control laws. - The Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents were exterminated - In 1935 Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves were killed - China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents were exterminated I could keep going but I think I've made my point. None of his debate files distinguish from legal and illegal guns. The bottom line is gun control leads to a more dangerous society.