BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

IVF is a procedure that involves not one or two embryos, but an extreme numbers of embryos are needed to be introduced and exposed. These embryos will then move on to the next cycle (3). With the unused embryos doctors more than likely either discard them or freeze them for later use. However not all couples provided information in guidelines to what procedures should be done with the excess embryos. It was also recorded that in England there is roughly 52,000 frozen embryos and more in other countries, that are frozen for years at a time (3). This may seem like a beneficial aspect for unsuccessful adults to still be allowed to keep trying with embryos they have frozen, but a lot of the times frozen embryos are forgotten. Some of the major issues that present themselves with freezing embryos is; that the span of time embryos have been kept in storage might have a lasting effect on the outcome of frozen embryo transfer and possible increase in fetal abnormalities. Fate of the stored embryos, if there is a death of couple who produced the embryo, is that the embryo is 'orphaned'. Possession of the embryos if the couple divorce, and safety of embryo freezing is then up in the air and more than likely to be frozen for a longer period of time and forgotten. (3) (3) https://ispub.com...
IVF Debate

Genetic screening can offer many benifits to a mother who wants to undergo IVF. This is because of the artificial nature of IVF and the new technologies surrounding the.practice. Say a mother has a disorder she does not want passed down to her child. In a normal pregnancy you could not choose if the child had the genes for the disease or not. However in IVF you can. This can be done by performing a biopsy on the blastomeres and seeing if they are normal. Due to the fact that many ore not normal it is imparative to identify problematic blastomeres. As analysis of 196 embryos (one cell in 38% and two cells in 62%), only 36% of the embryos were found to be normal on day (1) Not only can they prevent disease but they can increase the actual chances of a pregnancy by determining which embryos might die and not take. (1) http://m.humrep.oxfordjournals.org...
IVF Debate

Through IVF improvements, advancements in its technology also occurred. Such advancements, however do reveal several ethical issues. IVF allows for the problem of going against many religious belief on whether IVF procedures are "playing God." "Biotechnology is assuming a more predominant role in the generation of human offspring at the price of diluting our notion of man as a procreating being.... Man begins to see himself more and more as an individual who stands apart from what he produces, rather than as a being who is created in the image of a Triune God whose inner life is dynamically procreative." (2) This is a quote that further depicts the ultimate question on where will the lines be drawn for the future? Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and most forms of Christianity and Catholicism continues to be one of the major world religion that unambiguously condemns the use of IVF. These multiple religions see this as a "destruction of life."(2) By being such a controversial topic throughout the religious words, it"s difficult to determine where scientists will see the unnatural development and the "super babies" they are creating could potentially be dangerous in the unknown and unethical in many communities eyes. (2) http://www.crisismagazine.com...
IVF Debate

With all medical procedures there are risks. These risks should be acknowledged and spoken about prior to the decision to try IVF. IVF is a relatively new concept that still need extensive research. nce IVF is undergone all risks are accepted by the participants and are taken into consideration. However there are some preventative measures that can be taken and new technology that can be used in order to ensure a healthy baby. According to Oxford Journals on Reproduction, the regulation and establishment of laboratory protocols have vastly decreased the number of failures in the lab.(1) Also new technologies promise better odds for a successful pregnancy. This includes preimplantation, assisted hatching, in vitro maturation, blastocyst transfer and vitrification. Preimplatation for example identifies embryos that might become "Problematic" and can be avoided. While the technology is being developed (2) there is much hope. Blastocyst transfer could also be able to increase the rates of a successful pregnancy without the complication of twins. By implanting the female with a high scoring blastocyst, "(64% of patients), implantation and pregnancy rates were 70% and 87%, respectively."(3) So as you can see this is only the start of IVF and new technology arises everyday streamlining the procedure. (1) http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org... (2) http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org... (3) http://www.sciencedirect.com...
IVF Debate

Even though IVF has many superficial benefits, like the chance for infertile women to get pregnant, there are multiple problems couples will run into in when trying to conceive. According to research done by American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, babies born via IVF significantly increase birth defect risk. Mostly in heart, eye, reproductive organs and urinary systems among the children born. Through this research, out of 4,795 babies observed after IVF and 46,025 infants conceived naturally, 3,463 babies presented with birth abnormalities. It was recorded even after controlling factors like, race, mother's age, etc., over 9% of babies appeared with birth defects compared to 6.6% of babies conceived naturally (1). The question still stand, if its worth conceiving a baby with a 2.4% higher chance of having birth defects after IVF? (1) http://healthland.time.com...
IVF Debate

The most obvious benefit of IVF is being able to conceive a child when unable to do so naturally. Many of those that suffer from infertility live in a depressed state. In a recent study fertile women were compared to infertile women; women with a 2- to 3-year history of infertility had significantly higher depression scores compared with women with infertility durations of < 1 year. (1) Even though they can adopt, there is no experience like convincing your own. IVF can provide joy and hope to those previously told that they would never be a mother. Also as a woman ages she loses the eggs in her ovaries. IVF can prolong the age that a woman can give birth so that she is ready and does not feel rushed into a decision. Similarly a woman could save the eggs of her mate and use them for a later. (1) http://europepmc.org...
Catholicism

You said you wanted some proof on Christianity/Catholicism. Here are just a few. A priest somewhere in South America (don't remember exactly) convinced a non-believer that Catholicism was real. He blessed a sacrament/cracker (it's not a cracker rather unleavened bread used a lot by the Jews too) in front of the non-believer. He left it in the tabernacle for a week, and the non-believer came back a week later. When he opened the tabernacle and showed him the golden bowl inside layed a small chunk of flesh. Scientists carbon dated the flesh, and they found it was about 2,000+ years old. When scientists found a barrel of wine from the wedding at Cana, it's chemical composition perfectly resembled water. Any more things you want proven/ explained? P.S. The Bible does not explicitly state the abortion is bad. But Catholic doctrine does.
Catholicism

People say there should be no religion, because there is no God. These events shows that only such thing as a God could do these things. These were simply responses to your pancake and Elvis thing in the abortion debate. If there is a God, then Catholicism and all other religions are true as there is in fact a God. The Eucharist one happened in Buenos Aires in 1996. http://www.loamagazine.org... As for the water to wine thing I can't exactly find an article about it as I believe it was an old documentary I watched. Try to find it on YouTube I guess. P.S. Most (like 98.999...% :) agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real person P.S.S. Good luck on the 0.999... = 1 debate.
veganisim is a good life choice

Okay.... Seeing as my opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and ended the debate in a childish manner I'll simply point out some never addressed arguments. Since these arguments were never addressed, we have to assume the aff agrees. 1. Eating meat is not a right 2. Vegan-ism is impractical 3. Malnutrition IS a likely factor if the diet isn't created appropriately. 4. WHO is veganism a life choice for??? 5. Eating meat moderately answers the animal cruelty issue "the world would end from global warming first" I warned my opponent that any new points brought up in closing arguments have to be ignored.... "people like you would eat all the animals!!!" Omnivores are not causing animal extinction. I'll simply leave it at that Ummm...... I think the winner is somewhat obvious... vote neg!
veganisim is a good life choice

*I would also like to remind my opponent that no new points of debate can be brought up in round 3 closing arguments, or they must be ignored by the voters. " 'Malnutrition' is not a likely factor. Many foods are available other than meat to proved protein and the nutrients against malnutrition," The problem with this statement is malnutrition IS a likely factor. Malnutrition doesn't just include a lack of protein, but other nutrients as well. "Adequate total nutrition includes the following nutrients: protein, energy (calories), vitamin A and carotene, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, pantothenic acid, biotin, folate, vitamin C, antioxidants, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, magnesium, and iodine. " (1) Vegans are also at risk of Osteoporosis, Rickets, Iron-deficiency anemia, Macrocytic anemia, and Emaciation or slowed growth. That aside we haven't fully addressed the issue of the question at hand "veganism is a good life choice". Veganism is a good life choice for whom? Since the question doesn't specify, let's explore this further... A simple google search on babies killed or suffering from severe malnutrition because of veganism yields 1,490 results. Babies, children, and the elderly following strict vegan diets are high risk of severe under nourishment and malnutrition. Vegans omit all forms of dairy and eggs, and it's fair to say that even if a vegan was to breast feed, the breast milk of a vegan mother lacks docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development. (2)(sorry at the moment i don't have the time to fully expand on this) While veganism has health and environmental benefits, A strict vegan removing all traces of animal products from their diet can face an expensive, difficult, and impractical task. To answer the animal rights issue, moderate eating of meat which takes place in developing countries still allows countless animals to continue living and doesn't abuse their lives or raise them for slaughter. Human hunting of animals such as deer helps reduce overpopulation since in many areas of the United States there is a lack of natural predators. When hunting takes place moderately, it is often the weaker of the species killed. Which, in turn, helps cleanse the gene pool and allow stronger, healthier species to grow. (once again my apologies for not expanding as I would like or giving more facts) (1)Malnutrition. (n.d.). Nutrition and Well-Being A to Z. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from Reference.com website: http://www.reference.com... (2) http://www.babble.com...
veganisim is a good life choice

Seeing as my opponent hasn't done so, I offer the following definitions on the topic at hand Vegan: a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. "in today's world, millions of people gourge on meat and expecially in america the human abuses his right to eat meat" Eating is not a privilege; it is an essential part of life. We cannot say that a human abuses his right to eat meat because eating is not a "right" it is a basic biological process(Feel free to offer more clarification). "engourges in the fact that man is at the top of the foodchain" By stating this, my opponent has agreed to the fact that man is at the top of the food chain. Therefore, in the natural setup of the food chain, man is and does eat the species under it. Now on to my points.... 1. While vegan-ism lowers the risk of some health problems, it raises the risk of others. While vegan-ism is successful in lowering the risks of diabetes, heart disease, etc., it heightens the risks of other health problems such as malnutrition. Nutrients such as vitamin b12 are "only naturally occurring in animal cells and yeast or mold cells" (1). Vegan sources to this and other nutrients are scarce. 2. Vegan-ism is largely impractical As a vegan, you most likely must rely on vitamins and supplements. Since a major premise of vegan-ism is pro-nature, shouldn't the negative agree that it is best to get vitamins and nutrients in nature's natural packaging. By not getting these essential nutrients, the vegan risks health problems. A vegan goes as far as to not wear silk or wool, not to eat eggs, milk, butter, yogurt, cheese, honey, refined sugar (found in most all baked goods), as well as meats. This diet and lifestyle in itself proves to be largely impractical in "today's society". Sources (1) http://www.starchefs.com... I await your arguments =)
Funny Joke Contest

Dang, I should have said one joke per round. Good thing your jokes aren't funny :D. A rabbit (male) is about to be eaten by a bear (male) are in a forest when a genie appears and gives them each three wishes. The bear says, "I'll go first. I wish all the bears in the world were female." The rabbit says, "I wish I had a motorcycle." The bear replies, "I wish all of the bears in the world were here in this forest." The rabbit says, "I wish I had a motorcycle helmet." The bear says, "I wish all the bears in the world were in love with me." The rabbit smiles and says, "I wish that bear was gay."
Funny Joke Contest

Two Irish men are at a table in a bar. One of them says, "What's yer name?" The other says, "My name's Patrick." "Mine is too! I'll buy ya a drink on it!" The first man asks, "Where did ya go to school?" The second man says, "I went to school at St. Mary's." "Me too! Drinks on everyone!" A man watching at another table says, "Why are those two guys so happy?" Another man says, "Oh, it's the O'Conner twins. They're drunk again.
Funny Joke Contest

Ned bets his friend that he is the most popular man in the world. His friend says that if they go into the diner across the street not everyone will no him. They walk into the diner and everyone yells "Hey Ned!" His friend goes "Oh yeah, I bet you don't know the president." They go to the White House and sure enough the President lets him in and invites him to dinner because they are such good friends. They then go to Buckingham Palace to see if Ned knows the Queen of England. When the Queen sees Ned, she invites him over for tea. His friend gets really angry and demands that they go to the Vatican to see if he knows the Pope. When they get to the Vatican, the Pope asks Ned if he wants to go out on the balcony with him. They go out on the balcony and his friend passes out. They're in the hospital and Ned asks his friend what is wrong. His friend says "You could've been a regular at the diner, a campaign manager for the President, know someone in the royal family, and be very Catholic, but what surprised me is when you were on the balcony with the Pope, some guy said 'who's that up there with Ned?'"
Funny Joke Contest

Ok, this sounds pretty fun. A guy walks into a bar and puts 10 dollars on the table in front of the bartender. The bartender says "What do you want?" The man says "I bet you 10 dollars I can bite my eye." "Ok, you're on." The man takes out his glass eye and bites it. The next day he comes in and puts 50 dollars on the table. The bartender said, "What is it now?" The man said, "I bet you 50 dollars I can bite my other eye." "Fine." The man takes his false teeth out and "bites" his other eye. The next day he comes in with 100 dollars. The bartender said, "What are you here for now?" The man replied, "I bet you 100 dollars I can throw that shot glass across the room and pee in it without spilling a drop." "Ok, you're on." The man throws the shot glass across the room and is peeing everywhere. He's writing his name on the wall and doing all of this crazy stuff. The bartender starts laughing and says, "Ha! You lost 100 dollars!" "No I didn't, I won 100." "How could you have won?" "See that guy over there? I bet him 200 dollars that I could pee all over your bar and you would laugh about it."
Funny Joke Contest

Funniest jokes win. Three guys are arguing about who was the most drunk the previous night. The first guy says "I was so drunk I blew chunks!" The second guy says "You've got nothing, I was so drunk I got a DUI!" The third guy says "You two are chumps, I was so drunk I crashed my car... twice!" The first guy says "No, you guys don't understand. Chunks is my dog!"
Extremist Islamic groups such as Isis and the Taliban are the response to unfair westernisation.

The whole Islamic threat that is picked up by the media, is the fault of our own nations. We created the problem, whether on purpose or not, and it was because of our greed-not our misplaced good intentions. We condemn these men and portray them as evil, when they are no worse than our own governments. They resort to such violent means because they feel they have no other means, such as a modern army.
Was truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki right

I think that dropping the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was wrong because they didn't give enough warning. The first bomb killed 140,000 people at Hiroshima. The second bomb killed 80,000 people in Nagasaki. The cities that the bombs were dropped on were filled with poor people. I think that the idea that they dropped the bombs on innocent people was a bad idea!!!
Gay Marriage Should Be Federally Legalized

Gay marriage should be federally legalized for several reasons; It's a constitutional right in regards to the fifth amendment of The United States Constituition (1) which states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Leaving jurisdiction to the states results in national inconsistency with the law and deprives people of their constitutional right, the recent supreme court ruling in The United States v. Windsor leaves grounds for states to be sued if they exclude a couple from receiving benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); Section 3 was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court which stated:"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." (2) Section 3 of DOMA allowed only heterosexual marriages to be recognized and to receive the benefits that marriage receives from the federal government. (3)If someone is married in a state who has legalized gay marriage such as Washington, and then moves to a state such as Utah, and they are denied rights in accordance with Utah law that leaves ground to sue the state and creates a contradiction in the law, in regards to a constitutional and civil right, gay marriage should be protected by federal law.As a result gay marriage should be legalized federally, for all 50 states, and jurisdiction of an issue that intervenes with constitutional rights and creates an inconsistency with the law should not be left to the jurisdiction of the states.Sources:(1) http://www.archives.gov...(2) http://www.supremecourt.gov... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
THBT denial of rights of an individual can be made only if it infringes upon the rights of another.

Good luck on your first debate. Pro and Con, for the most part, have a similar understanding of Rights. However, Pro made reference to 18 century philosophy, where Con's reference is based on 21 century science. There is a subtle difference between the 18 and 21 century's understanding of Rights. Today's science, Rights apply to all living-systems, from a single living cell to social systems, where yesterday's philosophy, Rights apply only to man. In any event, both Pro and Con agree that survival is dependent on Rights. Con stated, “Once alive, “Life” has the freedom (“Liberty”), in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life.”Pro stated, “Survival by reason requires that you are able to act upon your reason otherwise your reason is of no avail. You can only act on your reason if you are free from the coercion of others.”The titled of this debate is, “THBT denial of rights of an individual can be made only if it infringes upon the rights of another.”Denial of rights results in denial of survival, hence, death. Therefore, Pro is advocating death on anyone who “infringes upon the rights of another.” If this was the case, there is a good chance there would be no life, or relative to philosophy, there will be no humanity.
THBT denial of rights of an individual can be made only if it infringes upon the rights of another.

thanks for replying to my debate.... I did never mention that smoking is a right... But after all it is the person's life, they should be allowed to do what they please with their life. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... as in the link above you can see that The right to life is the fundamental right, of which all other rights are corollaries. The right to life states that you own your own body. It is your property to do with as you please. No one may force you to do anything, no one may injure you in any way, and above all, no one may take your life (without consent.) The opposite to the right to life is life as a slave, where someone or some people essentially own you -- they can dictate what you do, when you do it, and take your life if they please. It should be noted that rights are guarantees to freedom of actions. They do not provide for anything but freedom of action. There is no right to food, for example; only the right to work and keep the proceeds with which you may buy food. And the right to liberty is a part of the right to life, specifically referring to your freedom of action. You may do what you want, when you want, provided you don't trample on the rights of anyone else. This is a necessity for man's life because man's means of survival is reason. Survival by reason requires that you are able to act upon your reason otherwise your reason is of no avail. You can only act on your reason if you are free from the coercion of others.
THBT denial of rights of an individual can be made only if it infringes upon the rights of another.

Public restrictions on smoking is one thing, but is smoking a right? Man or government can only give entitlements to others, but “Rights of an individual” comes from nature, not from man. Life's Unalienable Rights follow:Once alive, “Life” has the freedom (“Liberty”), in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a form of positive-feedback for all life, and a prerequisite for the human emotion of “Happiness. ” Hence, Thomas Jefferson’s polished version of our Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. ” . http://www.amazon.com... Therefore, “denial of [Unalienable] rights of an individual” implies death. So is death justified when one “infringes upon the rights of another? ”