BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The moon landings were not a hoax (continued)

1. "In the picture released by NASA following the Apollo 11 launch, you can clearly see an astronaut saluting an American flag, which appears to be fluttering in the breeze. Unfortunately for the Government, there is no flag-fluttering breeze on the moon. There is, in fact, no atmosphere." According to NASA "Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil. So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples"2. Non-Parallel shadows: The mythbusters tried this one here what happened; "The MythBusters built a small scale replica of the lunar landing site with a flat surface and a single distant spotlight to represent the Sun. They took a photo and all the shadows in the photo were parallel, as the myth proposed. They then adjusted the topography of the model surface to include a slight hill around the location of the near rocks so the shadows fell on a slope instead of a flat surface. The resulting photograph had the same shadow directions as the original NASA photograph from Apollo 14. To test this, they built a much larger scale (1:6) replica of the landing site, including a dust surface with a color and albedo similar to lunar soil. The MythBusters then took a photograph which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo from Apollo 11. The MythBusters explained that the astronaut was visible because of light being reflected off the Moon's surface." 3. "As you probably know, the sun is very, very far away from the moon. So far, that two objects of approximately equal height, about a foot apart from each other, should have shadows of approximately equal length. So check out this photo. http://www.braeunig.us...; First of all the distance is more than 1 foot. From the photo it appears to be about 6 ft based of of the astronauts height. Second of all like above the moons odd surface, lack of atmosphere, and color can cause shadows to act differently than on Earth. 4. the "C" rock. Take a look here http://www.moonlandinghoax.org... It's very interesting.
Lower the Voting Age

"I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher."If the voting age was to be based on brain development, twenty five would be the only age to make sense. However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are "more liberal" than their parents and 7% say "more conservative," 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's."Over a forth having their own opinions is actually quite good. Regardless, that isn't quite true. "in the NLSY sample, which looks at child-mother relationships, 51.2 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party identification. The results for the HLS sample, which considered child-mother and child-father relationships, were similar. In that sample, 53.5 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party affiliation, and 54.2 percent did so for their fathers’ identification." -http://www.asanet.org..."They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that."Children have free will, and given the right to vote would make their own decisions. If that means shutting out everyone but a few opinions, what difference does that make? Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference."Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. " Who's to say that age is any less arbitrary to deny people on the gender or race? Both were once seen as less intelligent.I thank you for the argument, and conclude.
Lower the Voting Age

I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher. Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed. But even if you don't buy this, teenagers are also more likely to be influenced by their parents. " While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are "more liberal" than their parents and 7% say "more conservative," 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's." http://news.gallup.com... Parents have a huge influence on teens. They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that. And since nowadays, people hardly ever fact-check we would have people voting on issues that they did even know the full story about, simply because it is what their mom told them. I do not think non-citizens should be allowed to vote, I am saying that your argument that teenagers are affected by politics thus should get to vote is flimsy. Non-Americans are also affected by politics. Regardless of whether they are American or not is unimportant, the fact is that if you're in a country, the country's policies affect you. Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. " If even a small amount are actively following politics...they should be able to act on it..." This applies to non-citizens but they still can't vote, right? The majority of teens are not ready, the few that are will just have to wait till they are older. "Not everyone lives to age eighteen..." Well no, but that isn't a reason to change the law.
Lower the Voting Age

Smoke and alochol effect brain development, hence why people cannot use them until age twenty one.The voting age is eighteen, not twenty one. That alone shows a difference in reasoning.However, because of the high prevalence of addiction both, I believe they should both be restricted for everyone.http://www.education.vic.gov.au...Personally, I do think five year olds should vote, but I am exculding them from this argument. This is to follow the advice of the person whom voted on this debate:http://www.debate.org...Non Americans are not being represented by american or local decisions, as they don't belong to the country. Naturalized U.S. citizens on the other hand, can vote. Each country represents its own citizens, and is responsible for their voice being heard.https://www.washingtonlawhelp.org...The point of my statistic is to show that even if teenage voters were bad voters, that wouldn't be a good reason for exclusion.Historically women and black people were kept from voting.This was because at the time, both groups were seen as incompetent. Why are teenagers so much different then them?If even a small amount are actively following politics and know what they are talking about, they should be able to act on it, rather than be forced to accept whatever is pushed on them.Not everyone lives to age eighteen.So, as is, many people will never be able to have a say in how their county is run."An average of 16,375 teenagers 12–19 years died in the United States every year from 1999 to 2006." -https://www.cdc.gov...“Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” R13; Abraham lincoln
Lower the Voting Age

I think the basis of your argument is that teenagers should vote because politics affect them. In that case, 5-year-olds should vote and so should non-citizens. Politics affect everyone in America. The reason we don't allow teens to vote is because they are children, they are underage. Why should we allow them to vote but not allow them to smoke or drink alcohol? Because they are not adults. And also, what is the point of your statistic: "36% of Americans could name all three branches of the government". It's worse for teens: "That's according to a new study, which finds a sizable percentage of high school-age Americans don't really know what all the fuss is about today. More than a fifth of the survey respondents didn't know which country we declared our independence from, including 14 percent who thought it was France, not Britain. The survey reported that 15 percent of U.S. teens didn't know the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. Nine percent thought we ratified the Constitution that day. (That didn't happen for another 13 years.)" http://abcnews.go.com...
Lower the Voting Age

Teenagers are affected by politics, and therefore should have a say in it. Many issues that are voted on directly affect primarily teenagers. One big example being education. Issues that tend to effect teenagers more than adults: voucher system Educational funding homeschooling Minimum wage Collage pricing Teenagers are held accountable to the law. If someone is to be held to the law, they should also have some kind of say in it. All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults. Even if sentencing was always reduced or changed for minors, they still had no way for their opinion to count in any fashion. . https://www.ncjrs.gov...Teenagers are not likely to vote worse than adults.55.7% of the U. S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election. That is just the presidential election, of which tends to get voted in most. If nearly half the current voting age adults won't vote, having teenagers involved won't hurt. According to my other sources poll, only "36% of Americans could name all three branches of the government"This shows that most people wouldn't be voting if quality of vote was important. . http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.businessinsider.com...Thank
Lower the Voting Age

I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. "However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: "Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed." "Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference." This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts
IVF Debate

To counteract your first statement, The live birth rate for women over 40 is only 13-18% (American Pregnancy Association, 2015). Even at the maximum of 18%, it is still a very risky and UNSUCCESSFUL route to choose. The infertility of parents may be inherited by their offspring, and this will pass on the suffering to later generations. Multiple pregnancies carry with them associated risks including a higher incidence of mortality, birth defects, premature delivery and low birth weight. (Resolve, 2016) On the average, only about 25% of transferred embryos continue to develop and become kids. (Advanced Fertility, 2016) Age has a great impact on the egg and the embryos and which will go on as well. Only 10% of women over 40's eggs are seen as normal. (Catalyst Health care Marketing, 2016) http://ivfmd.net... Women with fallopian tube blockages cannot conceive because their eggs cannot travel through their fallopian tubes to get fertilized. This also comes from age and quality of eggs. Unfortunately, many couples will not have successful first cycle IVF results and will need to consider a second cycle. If first the IVF works, it is completely faithless to get "rid of" the rest of the good embryos. Couples are given choices to either freeze their embryos" pay a storage fee, or have them completely destroyed. (Eckman, 2015)
IVF Debate

The most obvious advantage of IVF treatments is the ability for the couple to have a biological child of their own. The IVF process uses only the best eggs and sperm from the couple, meaning the fertilization is more likely to be successful on the first try. A baby born through the IVF treatment process will be no different from a baby conceived through natural means.The first IVF baby, Louise Brown, was born using natural IVF in 1978. Since then, the technology has advanced, and techniques refined in order to create safe and successful treatment have also grown. Before the birth of Louise Brown, those women who were found to have fallopian tube blockages (approximately twenty percent of infertile women) had no hope of becoming pregnant. Usually, conception occurs when an egg cell (ovum) in a woman is released from an ovary, travels through a fallopian tube, and is fertilized by the man's sperm. The fertilized egg continues to travel while it undergoes numerous cell divisions. It then rests in the uterus to grow.Women with fallopian tube blockages cannot conceive because their eggs cannot travel through their fallopian tubes to get fertilized. Dr. Patrick Steptoe, a gynecologist at Oldham General Hospital, and Dr. Robert Edwards, a physiologist at Cambridge University, had been actively working on finding an alternative solution for conception since 1966. While Drs. Steptoe and Edwards had successfully found a way to fertilize an egg outside a woman's body, they were still troubled by problems after replacing the fertilized egg back into the woman's uterus. By 1977, all of the pregnancies resulting from their procedure (about 80) had lasted only a few, short weeks.Lesley Brown became different when she successfully passed the first few weeks of pregnancy.Throughout Lesley's pregnancy, she was closely monitored, including the use of ultrasounds and amniocentesis. (Jennifer Rosenburg, 2015) With the progression and advancement of technology women with top chances of IVF success have per-cycle success rates of 40% or higher, while the majority of women have per-cycle success rates of 20-35%. ("What Are My Chances Of Success With IVF?" - RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.)
IVF Debate

Women considering the procedure are cautioned to discuss hypothetical scenarios with an attorney to ensure matters of ownership are prearranged in the event of her death. She should specify whether her eggs are to be entrusted to members of her family, destroyed or donated to an egg bank or facility for scientific research. If the recipient of her frozen eggs produces a child with them, she should specify whether her estate will make provisions for the care of the child. (Egg freezing guide, n,d)
IVF Debate

In the past, doctors would put in a number of embryos"sometimes up to four"to try to increase the chance that at least one would take. But that would often result in the birth of multiples"twins, triplets, quadruplets "which can often be hard to carry and have premature birth, causing future health problems. Many clinics now want to prevent multiples, and therefore only want to transfer one embryo at a time. Ironically, IVF " the very procedure that has played a part in the rise of multiple births " is playing an important new role in reducing them, thanks to innovative technology and techniques: Blastocyst Culture and Transfer " Clinicians grow the embryos in a nutrient-rich media for five days instead of the conventional three. This enables them to select the healthiest, promising embryos for implantation. Fewer need to be implanted, and the remainder can be frozen for future use, if needed. Elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) " Studies show that implanting multiple embryos in women under 35 doesn"t improve the pregnancy rate, it just increases the chance of a multiple birth. With eSET, a single embryo, usually a blastocyst, is transferred. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends a single embryo in women under 35 " two in those with an unfavorable prognosis. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) " Microscopic evaluation of early-stage (3-day) embryos identify those with the best development characteristics. Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) " This new screening technique examines the 5-day blastocyst, allowing analysis of all 23 pairs of chromosomes to identify those with abnormalities thought to be responsible for implantation failure. During IVF, eggs are removed from the ovaries and fertilised with sperm in a dish in the laboratory. The developing embryos can be left for either two to three days, or five to six days before being transferred to the woman"s womb.The amount of embryos transferred in IVF is carefully decided between the patient and the doctor to ensure the best possibility of becoming pregnant with a low risk of having a multiple birth. ("Avoiding Multiple Births in IVF." - RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. Web. 01 May 2016.)
IVF Debate

There are issues with multiple pregnancies; They carry with them associated risks including a higher incidence of mortality, birth defects, premature delivery and low birth weight. (Resolve, 2016) Rates of multiple birth were related to number of embryos transferred and whether extra embryos had been cryopreserved, and they were high compared with those of IVF patients the same age who had used their own eggs. (Reynolds, 2001) This issue is severe because age gaps in donors and the users can make sufficient differences in whether the baby is born healthy or not. Medical conditions are more common in women above the age of 40 and there is an increased risk of multiple births than if they had used their own eggs. According to Women"s Health, The IVF procedure involves a reproductive technique where the egg and sperm are fertilized in laboratory conditions. The newly formed embryos are then reinserted into the uterus. The number of embryos that are put back are 2-3 on average. More than one embryo is used in order to increase the chance of a viable pregnancy. Multiple embryos increase the chances greatly of multiple births. One study shows that IVF babies are 20 times more likely to be multiple birth babies than non IVF babies. (Women"s Health, 2016) Many endocrinologists will tell you that single pregnancies are better, cheaper, and more stable for growing families
IVF Debate

Unused embryos can be donated to research or another couple. If you are lucky enough to have embryos to spare, these can be used to help other people and even save lives. With the permission of the biological parents, unused embryos can be donated for research purposes, or to another couple to enable them to have a child. Stephanie Smith of Odessa, Missouri, would have liked more children through in vitro, but complications from the birth of her twin girls two years ago left her unable to get pregnant again. She had five embryos left and spent more than a year reconciling her choices with her religious convictions. Those five clusters of cells forced her to think, almost daily, about how she defined life. She considers herself pro-life, so donating to another infertile couple felt natural. The more she and her husband thought about it, however, the more unsettled they became. The questions she had were too big to be left unanswered. She didn't know if she'd ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers. "It's a life-altering decision," she says. They eventually decided to donate the embryos for medical research. If either option is not beneficial to the parent they may also choose to freeze their embryos for later pregnancy or until they make a final decision on what is best for them. Cryopreservation is freezing tissue or cells in order to preserve it for the future. It is used in infertility programs to freeze and store sperm, eggs or to freeze "leftover" embryos. One study shows that as many as 70% of patients with frozen embryos who consider their families complete continue to pay annual storage fees for five years or longer. (Boyles, 2005)
IVF Debate

Excess embryos always occur with IVF pregnancies and are a major issue for people wishing to become fertile without damaging themselves. Some ways to use the embryos are listen below. -Use for Reproduction: You can keep the embryos for future attempts at pregnancy. But you should plan for some expenses as the fertility clinic charges a storage fee even between IVF cycles. -Donate to Research: If your fertility clinic has a partnership with a research facility you can donate your embryos to various types of medical and scientific research. Read RESOLVE"s Statement on Stem Cell Research here. -Donate to Another Couple: You can choose to donate your embryos to an infertile couple in hopes that they have a baby.Read more here. -Freeze Indefinitely: Some patients choose to store their embryos with their clinic indefinitely. This can be a costly option as the clinics will charge either per month or per year for storage. Sometimes patients feel this is their only choice because they are unaware of the other options. -Thaw & Discard: The embryos are taken out of storage by the clinic, thawed in the lab, and at that point they stop growing and dividing. -Perform A Disposal Ceremony: You can take the embryos from the fertility clinic and dispose of them as you see fit, such as having a personal ceremony or creating a special moment to come to closure regarding the embryos. -Receive A Compassionate Transfer: You can talk to your doctor about transferring your embryos at a time in your cycle when there is no chance for you to become pregnant. Your body will take care of the embryos naturally. (Resolve, 2016) *Having too many good embryos to use may cause issues for families only wanting a specific number of children, especially families that don't believe in things such as abortion. Babies born from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) are up to 10 times more likely to suffer from rare genetic disorders, according to a pro-IVF geneticist .(Weksburg, 2011) One including: Angelman syndrome occurring in one in 1,500 among fertility-treatment children, compared to one in 15,000 in the general population. It causes serious mental retardation and speech impairment. (Weksburg, 2011)