BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Genetically Modified Foods

That is true, but not everyone will spend the extra money to buy organic food. With most of the population participating, in time, the price of the organic food would go down. However, the people want the best bargains and food that will withstand harsh conditions and survive will give it to them. Genetically modified food can withstand harsh weather conditions as well, which largely contributes to plants dying. Then, the supply goes down, causing the demand and the price to go up. Genetic modification prevents all of this from happening and is clearly the only answer to this problem.
Genetically Modified Foods

People claim that genetically modified foods are better for the economy, but that is not necessarily true either. Claims that support that GMO foods can yield more product do not take into consideration the idea of supply and demand. If more people in our communities spent their money on organic food, the demand would go up, and so would the supply. The previous farms who produced GMO plants would produce organic to increase profit. Also, GM crops use harsh chemical mixes in order to grow them effectively, and a large amount of GM plants can"t even be fed to livestock. Organic farmers are finding way to enrich their soil, which could cut pesticide and herbicide uses.
Genetically Modified Foods

Just because it has not been approved does not mean that it is not safe. For example, laws take a long time to pass, but that doesn't mean that they aren't worth having. It just means that they are exploring the facts before passing the law. Genetically engineered food are better for the economy as well. They can be engineered to have a variety of benefits, not just tasting better. Our society values things that grow faster and do not take much work. Therefore, genetically engineered crops are the better option. They can be engineered to be more resistant to diseases and pests. The crops are engineered to make the immune system of the plant stronger. This will also reduce the growers from having to use pesticides on their crops to keep the pests away. Less pesticides means that the plants will be healthier for people and they will not come with a layer of chemicals on them. This is incredibly helpful to farmers that don't want bugs, fungi, mold, and rodents infecting their crops, making the food more beneficial and better for people to consume.
Genetically Modified Foods

The major problem with genetically modified food is the fact that people do not know the long-term effects of consumption. Genetically modified/organic hybrids are not even approved for human consumption, proving there is something wrong with the genetically modified food, as organic hybrids are approved for human consumption. So while there might be a tomato that is insect resistant, five times an organic tomato"s size, and tastes better, does not mean that it will be good for anyone for long term consumption.
Genetically Modified Foods

Just because other countries have banned genetically modified food doesn't mean that the United States should. Maybe other countries just didn't explore all of the facts before they made their decision. For example, genetically modified crops are better quality and taste better. This is because the flavors can be enhanced through genetic modification. It can restore some of the flavor and aroma lost through pesticides. In fact, 90% of a group of taste testers preferred genetically modified tomatoes to organic tomatoes.
Genetically Modified Foods

All of Europe banned genetically modified food. In February of 1999, certain strains of GMO potatoes were proved toxic to rats in Germany. According to Tom Warhol and Alex Rich, United States long-grain rice is banned from export to Japan, because GMO pollen contaminated an organic rice crop in Arkansas. If almost an entire continent has banned GMO foods, the United States should take the hint. Enough of the world does not support the production of GMOs, and the US should do the same.
Genetically Modified Foods

People that do not want to reap the benefits of genetically modified foods are not making smart choices. It can help them will malnutrition and supply and demand. They should give the genetically modified foods a chance to prove if they are bad or not. If people don't take chances, no advancements will be made. For example, people didn't know if going into space would be safe or if they could return safely to earth. There is no guarantee in science. Still, people took the risk because they believed that it would benefit the world. The same should happen for genetically modified foods. If you never try anything new, how do you know if something is worth trying? Therefore, genetically modified foods should be given a chance. Perhaps they should be labeled so that only willing participants try the more superior foods. That way people will ensure that the genetically modified crops are the best.
The United States is Ready for a Female President

Resolve: The United States is Ready for a Female President Clarification: I would not have any personal issue with having a female president. Please do not misunderstand my argument. However, I am looking for a spirited debate. Burden of proof shared, simply convince voters of your position. Pro must argue that the United States is ready for a Female President Con must argue that the United States is not ready for a Female President Definitions Ready is defined as "completely prepared or in fit condition for immediate action or use." (1) Round 1 is acceptance Round 2 opening arguments Round 3 rebuttals and closing statements, no new arguments. Should be impossible to accept, please comment if you are interested. (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

First of all, Obama has failed to convince Congress to enact some of his proposed policies — such as higher taxes on the wealthy — that likely would have reduced the deficit and thus kept the debt growing more slowly. But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. One could argue — and Romney might — that the laggard recovery is the result of Obama’s policies and thus he should also get all of the blame for the decline in revenues. But the chart below shows that the decline in revenues (the red line) began at start of the recession — a year before Obama took office. The chart also shows an explosion of spending (blue line) began at the start of the recession — that is the result of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance kicking in. The spending kept going up, and a good chunk of that is Obama’s responsibility. Still, as the chart shows, it is not such a simple answer to pin this all on Obama’s “policies. ” “President Obama has both increased non-defense discretionary spending and failed to propose any serious reforms to entitlement spending. ” Fehrnstrom, a reporter, said. (research. stlouisfed. org) Sources: . http://www.washingtonpost.com... I have also noticed that my opponent doesn't have any sources, so I can't confirm whether his statements are true or not.
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

Congress can and does things without the presidents approval. It is there power to borrow money, and pay the debt. Congress does not need the presidents approval to use powers granted to them in the constitution. So as i have proven the debt is the fault of congress not the president. The president has no power when it comes to borrowing or paying debt. The only time congress needs the presidents approval is during legislation passage. The presidents signs or it goes back to congress to see if they can override the veto, but this is only in the legislative process. Congress can use powers granted to them in the constitution.
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

Congress cannot do things without the president's permission. The president can veto the Congress' decision. In some rare cases, Congress can over rule the president, but that has never happened since George W. Bush was president. Obama has never gotten overrode in the 4 years he has been president. The president must approve of things from the Congress, so it is mainly Obama' s decision, and this is why Obama is responsible for most of the 17.4 trillion dollar debt.
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

my opponent agrees that it is congresses decision to approve the presidents military actions. So if it was costly it is congresses responsibility to stop it. We did not have to borrow to fund the war in afghanistan. The United States could have paid for it but congress decided to borrow money, not Obama. Also this war is not a majority of the defecit gained under Obama. Congress is responsible for borrowing and paying debt to other nations. I have proven this already.
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

I understand my opponent's point of view, and yes, it is Congress' decision to approve the president's idea. I must make a few objections. If Obama never mentioned for the troops to go to Afghanistan, then they wouldn't have gone into the debt either. Also, Obama plans to take his troops back in 2014. Congress can't do anything without the president's approval either. His cabinet also assists his decision. However, the final decision ultimately rests with him.Sources: http://answers.yahoo.com...
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

I appreciate the quick response, makes for a more entertaining debate Yes the moving of troops to Afghanistan was costly to the United States, and yes President Obama did use executive powers to move troops into Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the money for the war had to be borrowed from other countries, we could have paid for it. Also, after 90 days of conflict without war being declared congress has to approve the actions taken by the president by a vote. This means that congress never ended the Afghanistan war either. It is there responsibility to borrow money and if the war was costing to much they should have ended it. This is congresses responsibility not the presidents.
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

The constitution will be my main piece of evidence for this debate. I believe congress to be responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt Article 1, Section 8.1: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes,duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts. and provide for the common defense and general welfare. " This shows that congress is the body of power that is responsible to pay the debt in the United States Article 1, Section 8.2: Congress shall have the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States" This shows that congress is also the body of power responsible for borrowing money The president of the United States has no power when it comes to national debt, therefore president Obama can not be blamed. The presidency has often become the scapegoat for the problems that congress is actually responsible for. So the debt did accumulate in the years which Obama was president, but he did not borrow any money, congress did
Obama is mainly responsible for the 17 trillion dollar debt

It is my pleasure to be debating Logan94. While this debate does not have much to talk about, I still hope for a great discussion.My opponent is false in saying that Obama is not the main reason for the debt. Under Obama, the national debt has grown by more than $6 trillion in four years, the largest increase under any president in U.S. history. By comparison, Under President George W. Bush, the debt grew $4.9 trillion in 8 years. Much of the national debt comes from Obama. None of the other presidents have had caused this much debt. If he didn't cause the debt, then who did?Sources: http://www.breitbart.com......
The Super Challenge

Haha! Con has fallen into the great trap. http://en.wikipedia.org...(tactic) There's no point in arguing, con, for I am the great 9spaceking, and I made this debate. I considered all the possibilities, and came to these rules I mentioned above. I am... "queen Bee And... I'll rule, I'll rule, I'll rule, I'll rule." I bet that's a sting in con's butt! (Puh-ting!) I feel regret if no one gets it. Ah, that's too bad. Speaking of bad, I made a rule in this round: "big", "bad", "small", "basic" cannot be used from round 3 and on forth.
The Super Challenge

The Super Challenge. The Ultimate Challenge. Whatever you call it, it's a challenge. Similar to Rational_Thinker's social experiments, this has limitations and rules that make con lose! However, these rules apply to both con AND pro, starting from ROUND TWO. (instead of JUST pro) 1. One rhyme within a complete sentence must be made. 2. Any word with "W", "X", "Y" or "Z" may not be used (except when citing wikipedia or other websites, or in usernames) 3. In each round pro must cite a Wikipedia article relevant to the argument, and con must as well---but not the same article. 4. a new rule may be added each round, but it applies to the next round and to both pro and con (and ONLY one rule may be made by each side per round) 5. a funny (and appropriate) joke must be made each round by both pro and con (yo mamma's are allowed) 6. part of a song's lyrics must be used in a round by both pro and con EXAMPLE: I don't trust con, he just stole the "20 dollars in my pocket"! (songs may not be reused for further rounds) 7.new rules cannot undo old rules EXAMPLE: you cannot make a rule that says you do not have to make up jokes Con must use round one as acceptance. Breakage of any rule results in a full 7-point forfeit.
I will not contradict myself!

1) Do you believe in the God of Islam?2) Do you believe in the God of Abraham?3) Do you believe in the Christian God?4) Is God a Trinity?5) Do you beat your wife?6) Is it acceptable to beat your wife?7) Do you still beat your wife?8) Have you ever beat your wife?9) Do your parents know you're going to lose this debate?10) Are you going to lose this debate?
I will not contradict myself!

Rules: 1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. 3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e. g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc. ) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. 6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself. Good luck to whoever my opponent may be.
I will not contradict myself!

There is a clear winner in this debate as Pro has violated rule 2 (see below) of his original post by not responding to any of my questions in round 3. The debating time limit on this was not prohibitive as we can see from his responses in the comments that they were posted very quickly and could have been done at any time prior to the expiration of the round. "2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. "I would like all persons voting on this debate to vote for me in Arguments, but for RFD I would like you to indicate if you think that there were legitimate contradictions (I'm curious what people think). I have identified 2 distinct contradictions (as well as a 3rd secondary contradiction) that I will explain presently. Contradiction 1 - The nature of GodIn round 1 I asked "Do you believe in the Christian God? " and "Is God a Trinity? "His answers to these two questions were contradictory. He answered "I believe the christian god to be a prophet of the islamic god. " However, the Christian God is a Trinity, so he is saying that "The Trinity is a Prophet of the Islamic God. " By using the phrase "Christian God" he has indicated that he believes this entity exists, exists as God (by calling him "God"), and exists as a Trinity (by calling it "Christian"). This is a clear contradiction to his answer "of "I do not believe god is a trinity. "Contradiction 2 - Beating your Wife? In round 1 I also asked "Is it acceptable to beat your wife? " to which he answered "I do not believe it is acceptable. "This stands in contradiction to his answers to question 1 of round 2 [Q1. R2] (Do you believe that the Koran is an authoritative document? ) and question 1 of round 3 [Q1. R3] (Are there any false statements in the Koran? ). This is a contradiction, because the Koran teaches that it is indeed acceptable to beat your wife. Koran 4:34 states that if a man fears that his wife will desert him that he should "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them. "Also Koran 38:44 records Allah telling Job to beat his wife. "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath. "The Koran not only teaches that it is acceptable to beat your wife, in places it commands you to do so. As an authoritative document (His answer to Q1. R2) without any false statements (Q1. R3) it is a contradiction for him to state that it is unacceptable. Either he accepts it and finds the Koran authoritative and without falsities, or he denies it and finds the Koran unauthoritative and with falsities. Contradiction 3 - I did not Contradict! In round 3 I asked "Do you know that you have already contradicted yourself in this debate" to which my opponent answered "I know that I have not contradicted myself in this debate. "This is a secondary contradiction because his responses were entered in the comments, however we see from the prior two contradictions that he indeed had already contradicted himself, and therefore this answer is contradictory to the truth of rounds 1 and 2.
I will not contradict myself!

1) Are there any false statements in the Koran?2) Can a Prophet Lie?3) Is Islam a religion of peace?4) Is Islam a religion of tolerance?5) Is it okay to kill those whom you disagree with?6) If Jesus was a prophet of God, does that mean he was not God?7) Isn't it possible that you cannot figure out wheather or not I am a robot?8) If you do figure out that I am or am not a robot, is it possible for you to be wrong?9) If it is possible for you to be wrong, can you really be sure that I am not a robot?10) Do you know that you have already contradicted yourself in this debate?
I will not contradict myself!

Thanks for a timely response. Now, to the debate. 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes because the god of all people, believers and nonbelievers, is the one and only, all mighty Allah. 4. I believe that this is his decision to make. 5. I believe Jesus was a prophet of god. 6. 7. I do believe that you are the one writing that question. 8. I do not know that you are not a robot. 9. It is possible for me to figure out whether or not you are a robot. 10. It is possible for me to figure out whether or not you are a robot.
I will not contradict myself!

1) Do you believe that the Koran is an authoratative document?2) Do you believe in monotheism?3) Do you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?4) Do you believe that a man should be allowed to have more than one wife?5) Do you believe believe that Jesus was God?6) Do you believe that Isaac was the child of Promise?7) Do you believe that I am actually writing this question?8) Do you know that I am not a robot?9) Can you know that I am not a robot?10) Can you really know that I am not a robot?
I will not contradict myself!

I look forward to reading your response. 1. I do believe in the god of islam 2. I do believe in the god of abraham. 3. I believe the christian god to be a prophet of the islamic god. 4. I do not believe god is a trinity. 5. I am not married. 6. I do not believe it is acceptable. 7. I am not married. 8. I am not married. 9. I will not lose this debate. 10. I will not lose this debate.
homosexuality is a mental disorder

Homosexuality is a mental disorder for several reasons, the most previlant reasons I will use is that following the theory of evolution, it makes no logical sense for one of the same sex to be attracted to another person of the same sex. Another key point is the definition of a mental disorder - "A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture."
New Education Systems

I'd just like to address one point and then wrap this up. The point is on the subject of academics. You write, "Furthermore, in the long term, academics will determine success, not one's ability to throw a ball." Which is true in some respects. But my point was to even step outside of our conformity to academics. Or, rather, to include in the connotation of the word a more hands on, vocational aspect to studies. A professional chef is not necessarily inferior to a doctor, though I would concur that they both should be able to make themselves breakfast in the morning and put a band aid on a scrape. We should know the basics of certain subjects but beyond that, much of what we learn in the current school system never actually applies to real life. I would like academics to include studies that people will immerse themselves in later in life, whether sewing, agriculture, or mechanics, regardless of whether that is considered 'inferior' to the more widely known subjects. Both plans do take measures in correcting the problem of conformity and I think that both plans could merit by jointing certain aspects together. Either way, it helped me to define my plan better and think of possible flaws within it. I'd like to conclude by thanking you for this discussion and I have to say it is nice that two people pitted against each other in a debate came to terms with the similarities and continued in a civil, just manner. You could have asked me to forfeit the debate as there was a lot we agreed on, but you didn't. And the discussion continued to be productive despite that. So truly, thank you.