BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rapping 2-on-2 battle

Rap battle! Looks interesting. Hopefully both of us will come out of this with an expanded rap horizon. Dominant= Childish GambinoRecessive= Hopsin (As you advised)Round 1 songs:Dominant: (Childish Gambino)Break (AOTL)http://www.youtube.com...Recessive: (Hopsin)Ill Mind of Hopsin 5http://www.youtube.com...
Rapping 2-on-2 battle

So I guess almost whole of DDO knows I'm a huge rap fan by now... I also like electronic music and metal too but that's irrelevant for now.Please only accept if you're an extreme rap fan, this is not some "ooh let's rap about guns money and b*tches type of thing".So... Here are the rules:Read the Rules. They are not the usual ones for a rap battle.1) The rappers must be slightly different from each other - IF they both rap in basically identical style, this isn't a fair pair to be fighting with because it's almost two of the same.2) Any song posted can not be "featuring" it must be solos3) Two songs per round, one of each4) You must select 1 dominant and 1 recessive rapper meaning that we consider them to be battling with dom vs dom and rec vs rec (rec should be your 2nd place choice)5) OBVIOUSLY Con cannot choose Tech N9ne or Machine Gun KellyMy dominant = Tech N9neMy recessive = MGKMay the best taste-in-rap person win.I advise you to put Hopsin as one of the two but it's totally up to you.RULES TO VOTERS:1) LISTEN TO WHOLE SONG BEFORE JUDGING IThttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
IVF Debate

IVF may have good intentions for a couple who is infertile, but too many consequence rise than risks. Although some couples choose to freeze their embryos with their partner or try to adopt/donate, ethical, legal and financial problems arise. Many religions such as catholicism does not accept IVF. Fertilitycare.net strongly states that many religious groups see IVF as disrespectful and not natural; so all doctors, patients and catholics should avoid it. Not just religion, ethically many people disagree with the idea of freezing embryos and killing over 2 million of them. Since 1991, IVF has lost over 2 million embryonic lives. IVF also loses the babies that were unfortunatly not successfully born. The ones born risk from low birth weight, increase in chromosomal and musculoskeletal defects, and disease appearing in life. Genetic screening can help with the future diseases, but the screening does have risks also. In order for a patient/couple to even consider IVF, they need to realize if they can even afford it? IVF process alone in the U.S. ranges from $10,000-15,000. Also keeping in mind genetic screening ranges from $100, $2,000, along with medication. tp://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...) Legal issues such as embryo adoption and or donations arise. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ; the author, Scott R. discusses women with legal issues that arise because of different laws needing to be made for IVF. There are other situations scuh as use and payment of surrogates, only certain countries have limitations, and maximum storage times. In conclusion, IVF should not be considered for couples who have difficulties trying to have a child. It is safer to not have a child rather than a sick one with chance of birth defects and disease later in life. IVF has only been 21% successful. (spuc.org). and 15-24% of IVF prganancies end in miscarriage. IVF's risks outweigh the benefits. It should be known to be a danger to humans than a 'privelege'.
IVF Debate

In conclusion, IVF should be a last term resort due to its highly costs and risks that go around using this process. However some may argue that the life of their own child outweighs any other possible risk or financial of the couple not being able to have a baby. Since 1981, 200,000 babies have been born by this or a similar type of way. This just shows that although there may be problems revolving this type of procedure people are easily willing to take that chance to have a baby that they wouldn't be able to have if it wasn't for this procedure. Many women are infertile however this procedure allows for the women to become pregnant in just a few short steps. The first step being that the women is given FSH for around 10 days through injections. Her eggs are then harvested via surgery and then her eggs are mixed with sperm in a container. Finally healthy embryos are put into her uterus usually ranging from 2-3, maybe 4. Although there are different types of IVF this is the usual one that is carried out. Consequently, if a couple values the life of their unborn child so much they may want to carry out this procedure no matter the ethical issues or risks that may factor into this in vitro fertilization. http://www.webmd.com...
IVF Debate

It can be debated whether a couple would be happier with a child that can get a disease, or without one. There are some ethical issues that are mentioned when a couple has a sick infant, and that is the topic of having another child to save the first. This website: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org... information about whether it is ethical or not to have a 'savior' child. There are ethical and legal problems that can arise from embryo adoption. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., here, you can take a look at what can happen to not only the parents, but the offspring as well; resulting offspring, liability, and compensation issues, legality of monetary compensation for donors. If you read Web.MD's website, they also include facts about the different IVF risks, which include premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, placenta previa, and, to a lesser extent, birth defects and cerebral palsy; also multiple births. 'Most risks are due to multiple births, and not to the IVF procedure itself. Twins, triplets, and other multiple-birth children are at much higher risk of premature or low birth weight than are singleton children. And premature birth and low birth weight are linked to a host of health risks.' Something to consider is the problems that arise from multiple births, and that is transferring more than two embryos increased multiple-birth risk, with no corresponding increase in the chance for a livebirth. Genetic screening along with the debate of IVF, again out weigh benefits, are are more risky in terms of medicine.
IVF Debate

Some options that may be considered if a woman or their baby receive illnesses and diseases during or after pregnancy then they could go to a doctor to help treat them with their anxieties or other illnesses. Syndromes that may occur during the process may never go away, but there is medicine to help out with it. However the couple is more than likely to be happy that they have a child even if such a disease may arise during the process, because the couple knew the risk factors involved in doing this and even if they didn't want any diseases they could of taken the gene out due to genetic screening. This being said couples are more than likely happy to even just have the chance at having a baby. People that believe that life begin at conception may have problems of throwing away excess embryos that aren't used but people don't have to throw it out if they don't want to. There are other methods such as embryo adoption which allows for somebody else to take your embryos and begin a life with it as their own.
IVF Debate

Web.MD states that IVF can cause many consequences to the mother and the child. The mother that had 3 miscarriages, had take an emotional toll. That being said, she was at risk of super ovulation and hyper stimulation syndrome. http://www.medscape.com... has sections of risks and failures of genetic screening. Some women/couples do not have the financial possibility to afford all the genetic screening, or even the IVF treatment along with other medical bills for the miscarriages and medication. The IVF treatment alone ranges from $10,000-15,000. Also many embryos are in danger during culturing. Mentioning genetic screening, ethical issues arise such as 'racial discrimination' and physical features to be changed or morphed to not even appear like the parent's child. The screening can also effect false negative and false positive results. 'Most women who receive false-positive results have normal pregnancy outcomes; however, these results can lead to further diagnostic testing, leading to increased anxiety about possible outcomes including pregnancy termination. A woman who receives a negative multiple marker screening result still has a residual risk for having a baby born with Down syndrome or a neural tube defect. This means that a woman who is screen negative may have, in fact, a false-negative result and have a baby born with, for example, Down syndrome.' The article also mentions uncertainties, and it becomes unfair when one couple gets fortunatly lucky but other can not.
IVF Debate

Genetic screening of embryos is beneficial due to one key point, it allows for embryos to be checked if they have fatal diseases or not. Consider this article for a second, http://www.slate.com..., in this link it talks about how genetic screening shouldn't be seen as whether it is moral or not. The woman talks about her 3 miscarriages and just wanted to see if her embryos were chromosomally normal or not. Then it talks about a woman, Amanda Kalinsky, who just found out that she had a gene for Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker syndrome, which would eventually lead to her death around 30-50 years old. However, instead of letting her family history get the best of her she selected only embryos without the GSS gene thanks to genetic screening. This allowed for the 3 kids she had and 2 embryos she stored to be healthy and not die in their middle adulthood like her. This being said although it is controversial for genetic screen testing to happen sometimes it may be what is best for your family.
IVF Debate

Advancement in IVF technology is very rapid in a few countries including the U.S. Yes, only SOME IVF babies are successfully born, but there are more risks than benefits of IVF, and here's why. The technology advancement clashes with some people whom believe it is unethical. Fertilitycare.net states an article, 'Dignitas Personae' and they believe that 'IVF does not respect basic principles so it is unethical and should be avoided by all catholics, patients, and doctors alike.' Religion plays a big role in ethics, and many people disagree with IVF simply because it isn't a natural process of life. This article also states that over 2 million embryonic lives have been lost since 1991, and can be seen as deaths of babies. All the types of 'programs' and transfers are more detrimental than beneficial.
IVF Debate

However there are certain types of in vitro fertilization that may cause a higher success rate of giving birth to a healthy baby. The fertilization process of IVF is generally the same, but then there are different options on how and when to transfer the embryo. For example, fresh blastocyte embryo transfer is one of these processes. This process is where if healthy embryos develop in IVF then doctors may suggest you wait a couple of days to see if any develop into the blastocysts. It is also proven that this kind of transfer has a higher,healthier success rate than the normal 2-3 embryo transfer, according to the article in http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com.... Along with that one type of in vitro fertilization there are other procedures that may result in a higher success rate of having a healthy baby. Another type of in vitro fertilization, is frozen embryo tranfer also known as FET. This type of transfer involves spare healthy embryos to not be transferred in the first in vitro fertilization cycle. This allows for a woman to try to have a baby if her original IVF didn't work as expected. This type of transfer is helpful to women whose ovaries have developed ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome because it allows for her body to first recover before transferring the embryos into her body. These types of In vitro fertilization make it that much more safe to have a healthy baby.
IVF Debate

although it gives couples a chance to produce a child, a child should not be born with high risks of complications and mutations. Such as low birth weight, an increase of chromosomal and musculoskeletal defects and even death. 15-24% of IVF trials end in miscarriage, and for a couple to undergo miscarriages can be emotionally and mentally scarring. Yes, genetic screening can be possible because of IVF, but the use of ART (assissted reproductive technology), again increases chromosomal and musculoskeletal defects. A child with birth defects can cause the child to live a hard and painful life.
IVF Debate

One of the basic benefits of in vitro fertilization are that it gives a couple who aren't likely to have a baby that chance. Some couples just aren't able to have a baby whether it's because of a low sperm count or their fallopian tube is blocked. Whatever the reason couples shouldn't be denied the right to have a child. Another benefit of IVF is that it allows genetic screening to be possible. If you have a family history of all kinds of bad diseases and illnesses, then it will be very likely that you may get those diseases too. With genetic screening it is possible to see what genes the baby has and whether or not they may cause harm to him/her later in their life.
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

My second point was made in case we wished to argue my first point. I'd like to take a look at your first point. You're completely right, however, I fail to see how this makes gender or sex unalterable. One may be born blonde but later on in life, they change it to brown. I'd also like to mention that a disorder is a condition that affects a person's well being. How does being transgender affect anyone's health? Anorexia is a serious issue that can cause death. How does that compare?
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

Your definition says gender is "used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones" I can see why you'd like to argue that gender is more cultural and social rather than biological- we both know there is no disputing biology, chromosomes, and genitalia. Yet you contradicted yourself in saying that sex-change procedures (biological alterations) change a person's gender. If gender is purely social and cultural, how does one of these procedures alter one's gender?
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

Alright, I accept the challenge. This is my first debate as well, so we'll be evenly matched. Main arguments: 1. According to the Oxford Dictionary, gender is defined as "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)". Gender isn't a biological trait that you are born with, it's simply a social class. 2. There are procedures that can allow one to obtain the features of the opposite sex. Thus it is alterable.
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

Alright, this is my first post but don't go easy on me. Let's get right down to it. 1. Quite simply, when we're born we are either male or a female. 2. Having false beliefs about our gender identity can be classified as a disorder. Think of an anorexic who thinks (s)he's fat when (s)he's really not. I believe people with any type of disorder deserve compassion. This includes not indulging their false beliefs about themselves, just as we shouldn't go around telling anorexics their fat
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

You continue to repeat yourself that transgender people are delusional but you have nothing to back it up, except for your own opinions. You also said that it is a disability because of the mental distress causes. So then, how can you still argue that it is a disability in cases where there is no distress? And even if we were to call it an illness, it doesn't change the fact that gender and sex are indeed alterable. I thank for your time as well. I look forward to any future conversations.
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

I never used the word "psychological state." I said "mental illness"- which is "characterized by dysregulation of mood, thought, and/or behavior" (cdc.gov) Anyways, your definition said "only if it causes distress OR disability. So if a condition doesn't cause distress, as long as it is disabling, it fits your credentials. Delusion is disabling, so being transgender perfectly fits your definition of a psychological state. This is my last post. I appreciate your time. Maybe we could hang? ;)
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

According to American Psychological Association, "A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder." They also state, "Force released a report in 2011 entitled Injustice at Every Turn, which confirmed the pervasive and severe discrimination faced by transgender people."
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

I agree with you. Transgenders do catch a lot of hate. So do blacks, Jews, Mexicans, gays etc.. But they don't have a suicide nearly as tragic as our fellow transgenders. That's because being black, Jewish, Mexican, or gay isn't the result of a mental illness. And in case you're going to say transgenders experience harsher discrimination, tell that to the Jews. They still have it pretty hard...
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

Yes, they do experience mental turmoil and are more likely to commit suicide. However, this is because they are constantly being told that it's wrong, sinful, unmoral, etc. They deal with much more discrimination then the average person. It is well known that someone who is bullied, is much more likely to go into depression. Being transgender is just another trait that leaves one as being a target for mistreatment. Are you saying that it's a disorder because of how other people act?
Gender isn't alterable- we're either female or male

"My second point was made in case we wished to argue my first point." ? "How does being transgender affect anyone's health?" Entertaining a delusion challenges nature and reality. (I promise you, nature and reality will always win.) Since transgenders are up against these unthinkable opponents, they're often experiencing great mental turmoil. This can seriously affect their mental health If you don't believe me consider that transgenders are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than we are.
Voting based on your Christian/ Catholic beliefs is wrong.

That was your OP, but there were no arguments. I realize you're a new member, so I'm trying to help you out. You, as the instigator, must prove voting based on religious beliefs is wrong. Me, as the oppsiition, must prove voting based on religious beliefs is not wrong.Well someone as a christian believes in God and following his rules is part of believing in him. So when you vote you are voting in what you believe in. This is a strong contention in my favor. Right and wrong are subjective, but beliefs are justifiably so. Democracy and peoples rule can only work if people vote based on their beliefs. If they don't vote based on their beliefs, whether it be god, integrity, hard work, family values, ect., then they are voting based on someone elses. When you vote based on someone else's beliefs, you are supporting party or singular despotism, IE, authoritarian states. But when people vote based on their own beliefs, they can change the world to their tastes. To their sensibilities. Allowing people to vote based on any belief is justified, even if it's a religious one.My opponent has two premise BOP's. One is to prove that some authoritarian elements are good. The other is to prove that it's ok to discriminate one set of values or beliefs.Yes, but when you vote its because you believe in something that tells you to follow his rules so is it really your own opinion or just an allusion.You make the mistake of thinking all religions work the same way. Either way, it's ok for someone to vote based on someone they honestly believe in. The difference between this and what I said, is that with his contention, the religious wo/man, has the choice of following god, spirituality, ect. By forcing someone to a defined and subjective moral code is forcing someone to betray or disregard their own values.I don't like to overplay this card, but Pro must prove morality is subjective.This keeps what our fore fathers wanted, THE CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATED.For the record, not everyone shares the same forefathers. You're confusing church and state though. The CAS amendment restricts government and religion being intertwined. Or in other words, religious institutions cannot have a place in government, and vice versa. Not whether someone can vote based on their religious values. For example, Jesus and Muhammed both advocated for charity to the poor. If a mother votes for welfare expansion with this as the sole motivator, is the mother wrong?
Voting based on your Christian/ Catholic beliefs is wrong.

I am really bad at this, but hope to improve my debating after this.Let's dive in! I believe voting based on your religious beliefs is wrong. Straight forward. Why? Well someone as a christian believes in God and following his rules is part of believing in him. So when you vote you are voting in what you believe in. Yes, but when you vote its because you believe in something that tells you to follow his rules so is it really your own opinion or just an allusion. In this I am not saying take away your right to religion, but you shouldn't make a voting decision based on your religious belief.This keeps what our fore fathers wanted, THE CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATED.
NO SMOKING IN PUBLIC

I think the first thing that I want to make clear is that the US government has not passed a law saying that you can't smoke in public, only state and local governments have been passing these laws. I do think that that makes a difference because those local governments can better decide what is needed for their population. This is not an effort of Big Brother to control you, if anything it is little brother trying to control you but it is alot easier to beat up little brother. What I mean is that it is alot easier for you to get your city council voted out of office than all of congress. I think that this law is an example of governments doing something that the market should but wasn't solving for. Public opinion polls in California show that about 60 or 70 percent of the population is for keeping the ban in place. Research also shows that more people started going to resturaunts after the ban was put in place. What this shows is that there was an obvious demand for smoke free places but for some reason those places were not being created. That demand was most likely there because of the public health issue. Thus I feel that it was the correct place for government to step in. Take the example of an internation highway system, I know it sounds weird but stay with me. There is an obvious economic benifit to having a large interstate highway system, but the chances of the market solving for for that demand, i.e. having individual contractors come together and build the thing, was extremely small. So the government stepped up and said YOU WILL BUILD THIS. That is not government telling up what to do, it is the government helping us out with something that was wanted but for some reason wasn't happening. If the ban was enacted and patronship went down, then that would be different. That would be the government putting in place something that was not wanted. But that is not what is happening around the country.
NO SMOKING IN PUBLIC

Still this is America, and if I own a business it is my choice if I want to let my customers smoke or not. The goverment has no right to tell me that I can't smoke. If a customer doesn't want to go to a smoke place then that customer should go to a NON_Smoking place. then all are happy. The truth is that the goverment wants to prove that they can control us. THEY ARE WINNING.