BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biotechnology

One of the reasons why biotechnology is being practiced is to reduce hunger. But the real roots of hunger are: poverty, inequality, and lack of access to food and land. Too many people didn"t have that money, or too poor, to buy the food that is available that is, however, poorly circulated, or absence of land and resources to grow it themselves. (Lappe, Collins & Rosset, 1998). I will put down here some valid reasons why biotechnology is not good for third world countries: Recent study states that there are hidden risks of eating genetically engineered foods being produced. Such foods could act them as allergens or toxins, change the metabolism of the food making plant or animal, causing it to give new allergens or toxins; or lessen its nutritional value. The real core of biotechnology is to bring about profits, and not make third-world countries more productive (Busch et al., l990). By regulating a seed to sale, and by forcing farmers to pay escalated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are decisive that they will excerpt the most profit from their investment. " In Illinois, the adoption of herbicide resistant crops makes for the most expensive soybean seed-plus-weed management system in modern history"between $40.00 and $60.00 per acre depending on fee rates, weed pressure, and so on. Three years ago, the average seed-plus-weed control costs on Illinois farms was $26 per acre, and represented 23% of variable costs; today they represent 35-40% (Benbrook, l999). " Several farmers are eager to pay for the clarity and sturdiness of the new weed management system, but such edges would be short-lived as ecological problems appear. Through seed costs and technology charges, companies advancing herbicide tolerant crops are attempting to change as much per acre cost as possible from the defoliant. There are some experimental trials that show that biotech seeds do not increase the crop"s yield. "A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in engineered versus non-engineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region combinations. In the six crop/region combinations where Bt crops or herbicide tolerant crops (HTCs) fared better, they exhibited increased yields between 5-30%. Glyphosphate tolerant cotton showed no significant yield increase in either region where it was surveyed. This was confirmed in another study examining more than 8,000 field trials, where it was found that Roundup Ready soybean seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar conventionally bred varieties" (USDA, l999). Too much adjustment of the crops through biotechnology has removed the very soul of natural farming. It has been addressed that biotech crops intimidated butterflies. It also adds to the serious problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria. (Biotecharticles, Agbioforum)
Biotechnology

Biotechnology The newly-formed technology creates plants that uses a lot of soil"s resources and loses its ability to continue growing crops in the future, even when crop rotations are used. It can take a very long time (might take several years) for the soil used for growing these crops to recover from just 2-3 years of biotech plants being grown. All plants have that characteristic level of cross-pollination. When biotech plants have come into contact with normal crops, the hybrids that are created with this may not be able to continue. Thus, it may cause normal crops or simply, plants, to be tweaked unexpectedly. It costs a lot to grow biotech plants than growing regular crops. Simply, there is no cost-savings that happens. In animals, expensive and advanced technologies are needed to be produced to maintain genetically engineered species. Genetic pollution happens where biotech species multiply at a higher rate compared to regular species that are present and with the possibility of being extinct. Animal species that are created have side-effects such as short life span. They are prone to disease, mutations, and physical defects. And, hybrid species created may contain new strains of diseases or viruses that are produced from the modified genes. Some people view biotech in humans as playing god. This issue has often tied to religion. Therefore, it made biotechnology a controversial subject. Sources: Advise America, Yahoo Answers, Health Research Funding, Occupy Theory
A ban on the veil at work is not appropriate.

First, and rather rudely may I add, Con tries to change the debate. It's my debate, and I do not accept it. Perhaps Con should've tried to make the change in the comments section. This means that (in his words) he 'loses by default'. As he has said 'A universal or country-wide ban would be unenforceable'. Sorry, but you're the one that accepted the debate.Con then lists some 'examples' of where a ban on the veil at work is not appropriate. However, this is wrong. Everyone knows that religious rights overcome all of those other things.Con then lists some examples of methods that an ugly-arse cow could use instead of wearing the veil, but the veil has some advantages to it.-It's cheap-as.-Everyone will think 'Hey, that's just a normal Muslim'-Nobody will suspect your ugliness.-You can wear a baggy one and your weight will remain a mystery.-You don't have to lose all your spondoulix to buying make-up and hair dye.-If you get a red one, it doubles as a post box costume.-The bullies will just be too afraid to make fun of you, as you get sued if you make fun of the religious.-You get to keep your job, as your employer will be too afraid to sack you as he's afraid of getting sued.I thank you.
A ban on the veil at work is not appropriate.

Imagine this: You're a girl and you're a dead ugly cow and you want people to stop pointing at you and laughing. How do you stop this? The answer is simple: the veil. Wear that thing and you're an insult-proof machine, and to make people think that you're sexy as, all you have to say is that you're wearing it for religious reasons.So that's why I think banning the veil is really unfair. It makes poor old ugly cows have to put up with chavvy skin-exposing tan-obsessing sexy women hurling insults at them.I hope for a good debate. No referring to the veil as a 'bin bag' or 'duvet' and no referring to ugly people as 'Mirror-dodging cows' or 'Uggle buggle'. I hope for a good debate. I thank you.
School Uniforms, on Balance, are Beneficial

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round and I cannot defend my case from his rebuttals, since he made none. I will however be telling the voters why I have won: My "deterrence of crime" argument outweighs my opponent's "cost" argument (which I refuted) I have successfully met my BoP I haven't forfeited I have successfully refuted my opponent's case, however he has not done the same to me, leaving ALL of my points true by default. I have proven that, on balance and with all arguments considered, school uniforms are beneficial. I have used stastics and logical syllogisms to prove my arguments, which I must do in order to fulfill my BoP Hope my opponent is okay since he hasn't been on in two days.
School Uniforms, on Balance, are Beneficial

Schools uniforms, on balance, are beneficial. That's the resolution at hand. BoP is shared, so con has to prove that uniforms won't be beneficial, while I have to prove that they are beneficial. I'd like some societal impacts not just "omg r rightzz!" R1: acceptance and thanks R2: constructive cases without rebuttals R3: rebuttals of constructive cases R4: defense of one's own case, crystalization of points, and telling judges why a certain side won the debate Rules: 1) Credible sources must be cited (books are OK but provide author and all that jazz) 2) Try to keep sources up-to-date (can't have a source from 1253 BC saying school uniforms are bad) 3) No semantics 4) No trolling 5) Not really a rule, but sarcasm and stuff is fine if you are using it to advance debate. Making jokes and having fun with the debate is GOOD, but not required or anything. 6) Stay on topic With that said, good luck to con
Is water real

Water is absolutely real, you should not make impossible debates unless you're positive you can prove your impossible statement. Water is a chemical compound, a combination of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, or H2O, thus the name. We see it. It is real. Denying its existence would be highly illogical. Water is a real thing, and while it is clear, we can see that it is a substance, which we can hold. It is real.
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

You stated the responsible American adult thus I told you about the modern culture of American society on what you call responsibility which is a matter of opinion on how you look at the average adult on responsibility. I presented 3 scenario's based on human nature and you cannot talk about responsibility without the basis of human nature so how is that irrelevant and it's a universal truth knowing that drugs and human's doesn't go well since emotion and mental health is a factor no matter what you say about marijuana it has long term effects in the long run or maybe you meant responsibility of the knowing the side effects of the drug, if so you was unclear and need to clarify.
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

It's one thing my opponent forgot in my claim when he stated the responsible American Adult should have use of the drug. Human Nature is what I mean but I do admit to my opponent about how adults should have use to this drug but responsibility is a big claim definitely for the fellow American. If marijuana was to be legalized just think about the American Society already how much in debt America is in and how hard it is to sustain jobs in this economy. I mean America has some of the highest killing rates, drug and alcohol abused related crimes yet we're supposedly the leading economy but you speak of responsibility. Did you ever consider responsibility even as an adult can be tried and this excludes medical use though that that too can be abused, in a way I grant you the common adult is view as responsible but that's not always the case. The average adult could be content but in this economy psychological effects is ensured to the point of the depression and use marijuana to null the pain. There are many outcomes of this but I will give you three the first being the lost of a job and family going back to my previous statement of how this drug causes social problems although this is through some time of use, secondly the average adult is single in most cases being with two children this can cause a great deal stress over a period of time where yes marijuana might help ease the stress but over the years the psychological effect can have an influence on the children or even suffer from second hand smoke which is more problematic, and lastly the adult who wants to make money off the children influenced to the use of marijuana. The definition of responsibility can be a matter of opinion the average person backed up against the wall might commit even the most horrendous act to get one's head from under the water as you can see some most upstanding citizens who could be responsible such as the big governments who always caught in some type of scandal just last year an C.I.A agent leaked private intel to an prostitute, since people are not perfect and flawed to commit mistakes the term responsibility is hard to consider American or not.
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

My opponent makes the claim throughout his argument that marijuana is harmful. He cites clearly biased statistics from websites that are dedicated to the anti-drug movement. What my opponent says about the harms of marijuana may be true, but just as it is in the case of tobacco, it is the choice of the citizens, not the government, as to whether or not one chooses to smoke marijuana. This renders my opponents claims about the harms of marijuana irrelevant because alcohol and tobacco are legal in America. Furthermore my opponent says, "Plus even drugs won't cut down the crime rate, it may very well increase it, don't forget the urban societies won't succumb to this without violence for those who made money to distributes and supply without repercussion. " The sentence its self lacks coherency, but seems to imply that legalizing drugs will increase the crime rate, but cites no study or statistic to reaffirm this. Furthermore I would like to point out American prohibition as a historical example of the troubles that restricting substance. Prohibition gave way to a myriad of organized criminals. The mafia, bootleggers, moonshiners, and other criminal groups all formed because of prohibition. American adults are responsible enough to enjoy marijuana in a proper manner.
The use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States

I will be arguing that the use sale and manufacturing of marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the United States. I will base my argument on the following contentions: 1. It is the personal choice of each individual american as to whether or not they smoke marijuana, regardless of the harms (assuming that the persons are informed on the potential harms). 2. Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses. 3. Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates Contention 1:It is the personal choice of each individual american as to whether or not they smoke marijuana, regardless of the harms (assuming that the persons are informed on the potential harms). Just as is the case with tobacco and alcohol, each US citizen should be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use marijuana. As long as the citizen is informed by the manufacturer of the potential harms (as is the case with alcohol and especially tobacco products), it should be the choice of theirs, not the governments, as to whether or not they choose to use marijuana. Each adult citizen is responsible for making these decisions for themselves. Contention 2:Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses. Another reason marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US is that marijuana has useful medical employments. Marijuana is used to treat symptoms of cancer and chemotherapy. Marijuana is also used to treat glaucoma. Marijuana ought to be legalized to help treat those afflicted with diseases that can be treated with medicinal marijuana. Contention 3:Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates. With Marijuana legalized, the government would no longer need to arrest all marijuana dealers, only the unlicensed ones. Also governments would not have to arrest users of marijuana. Non-violent drug offenders now account for 1/4 of the prison population (1) "The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following: The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000. The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs. " (2). I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and await his response eagerly. 1. . http://www.cepr.net... 2. . http://druglibrary.org...
The sandy hook "shooting" is full of satanic symbols.

I guess I lied. I will answer your rebuttal 1) Wayne Carver- youre making me reason why he didnt let the families see their children? How am I suppose to know why? There are many factors and laws that I do not know that could have influenced his reasoning. Even if this thing was an elaborate lie then why not just make the situation easier and say that the families were able to see their children? I mean if they can pull Hook off with ease then why not lie just a little more and say that the families were able to see their children? Just because an incident happen to fall a certain way doesnt mean it's true. It's like saying that my car didn't start up today because God decided that I should not drive today, but is it really God or a dead battery? 2) I was able to disprove your statements supporting your VT article stance. You also conceded to my argument that some of the VT statements were inaccurate in this paragraph. Throughout this whole debate, I was finding flaws in your arguments and you did nothing to defend your assertions. Instead, you cherry picked new information and used rhetoric to allude me on "new" information all the while dropping my rebuttal i.e. statements 4,6-10 on VT article. This is proof that you lack the necessary information to prove that the incident was a hoax. 3) You state that, "there is also no survelence footage of Adam entering the school." Here you go :) 4) Superbowl look-alikes please see first statement. As for the BOSTON MARATHON, you have no right to speculate. I RAN the marathon that year, where were you? I guess you're probably thinking that I was part of the conspiracy, well you're clearly right because youre Dilara, the goddess that is right about whatever the fck she wants and I am just a regular human who partook in the fake event. Normally, I would thank the debater for this "intriguing" debate, but instead, I'm gonna give you a big "FCK YOU" for that last statement. It is really hurtful to criticize on such a sensitive issue especially when one partook in it.
The sandy hook "shooting" is full of satanic symbols.

1 According to Wayne Carver the pathologist who did the autopsys they did not allow the family's to see their childeren's body's but took pictures instead-wouldn't parents want to see their kids and why wasn't there any outrage? 2 Durring an MCI (mass casualty incident) like a shooting or bus crash ect there are certain protocols that are followed (START start triage and rapid treatment). This did not happen at sandy hook. Teachers describe seeing blood on the floors in interviews-is that not enough to get people in that school to help injured baby's?. A buddy of mine is a paramedic as well as an uncle and my other uncle is a cop and they tell me that almost everyone that is somehow injured or ill is taken to a hospital and revived unless they are very obviously dead (like decapitation) there was a kid who fell off a bridge and was not breathing and they still took him to the hospital. There are old people who haven't taken a breath in 15 minutes who are taken to the hospital. If there are 20 childeren dead or dying there would be someone in that school getting them out of there and taken to a hospital. There is also no survelence footage of Adam entering the school. Back to Wayne carver. If you watch him in press conference he is very confused and doesn't know anything about what happened. You even admit that the twitter and Facebook stuff is weird. You can say it was an error but really...all the sandy hook stuff had errors? The Super Bowl. The girls who are said to be Grace McDonnell and Emilie Parker could just be look alikes. Avielle richman, Ben Wheeler and Joey Gay were deffidentally at the Super Bowl. Also Jack Mcdonell and Walker Previdi were deffidentally there to. You can say that these were all mistakes but how many mistakes have to be made before you question this? I'm assuming you believe the official Boston bombing story as well. Stop denying evidence and wake up.
The sandy hook "shooting" is full of satanic symbols.

Sorry for a the typos I'm dyslexic and I was emotional when I was writing this. Look up newtown bee interviews dead principle or newtown bee interview dawn hochsprung on google and you will see how the newtown bee apologized for it and you'll see it on images how she described a masked man come into the school. Second look up R.I.P Victoria soto Facebook hoax on images and you'll see it was set up on the 10th. Watch qkultras sandy hook surprise on YouTube and you'll see how the dead kids sang at the Super Bowl and then watch sandyhook Super Bowls video of the choir at the Super Bowl (it's the official video and it's wasnt put up by truthers) read veterenstodays article on why sandy hook was an elaborate hoax and you'll see what I mean. You guys just deny these facts. You only want to talk about the actors and closed casket funerals and Adams motive when you debunk this but you don't tell us why there were tweets sent out 2 days before the shooting happened. You can't deny that the satanic sign comes up several times. Newtown is a stanic town. Not all of the people who live there are satanists but there is a large number of them. I don't see why some people like you believe the official story. There is evidence that sandy hook was a hoax. Try to tell me why the tweets were sent out before the event or why the Facebook page was set up before the event . Dot say it was an error because first twitter an Facebook don't mess up this bad and second they can't all be errors. You know it was a hoax and your denying it.
The sandy hook "shooting" is full of satanic symbols.

1) For credibility, you should learn how to spell, especially if it's on a subject you're debating about. 2) Google is such a great search engine that it will give you everything with the keywords you enter. Whether the facts are legitimate or not, google does not discriminate on the findings that it gives. For example, I googled, "who will win this debate on sandy hook, socratits or dilara?" Results came back with 1 result, stating that "socratits will win by a landslide." The fact that I was able to google this clearly means that I will win and you should forfeit the next subsequent rounds. To save us the trouble. But on a more related note,this isn't a debate. It's a rant about random things not pertaining to the subject at hand. Even if it was, your arguments holds no weight when there are actual PHYSICAL PROOF OF THE AFTERMATH. The argument you're trying to make is un-defendable (is that even a word)? on any accounts. You seriously will have a easier time convincing the audience that humans are really aliens from another galaxy. Anyways, thank you for letting me do this debate with you. Good luck with your rebuttal, you'll need it. :)
The sandy hook "shooting" is full of satanic symbols.

The sandy hook hoax was done in Newtown CT-the satanist center of eastern America. Google search satanism in Connecticut and click in the page called "the church of satan and how do I get involve"by www.satanservice.org/theory/cosmc/text and there is an article by the church of satan saying that sanfrincisco and newtown are the satanist centers of America. Sanfrincisco is a big city in a state with 38million people and you know how California has lots of weird stuff going on all the time but this small little town in Connecticut? I thought it was all suppose to be well off white Anglo saxan prodestants and Jews not satanists!. What's this business with the Parker family? Why is little Emile making a satanic sign with her hands in the picture and why is her little sister always sucking on her fingers in a way that her hand is making the devil horn satanic sign? What's up with the vicky soto picture where that guy behind her is making the satanic sign? While your reading this why is it the sandy hook support fund as set up on December 11- 3 says before the shooting and why was the R.I.P vicky work page set up in December 10? And why were all those tweets about sandy hook sent out on December 12? And why did the Newtown bee interview the dead principle on December 13-a day before the shooting and she's suppose to be dead! It said she saw a masked man come into the school-I thought she was suppose to be dead how do they mess up like that? Why did the dead kids sing in the sandy hook choir at the Super Bowl? This isn't right folks. If your aware of all this information but choose to believe the official story then wow....your probably denying it.