BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

When you have a birth with more than one child, there are complications with the labor and the children. A full term baby is supposed to stay in the womb for 39 weeks, however, if you have twins, the birth may be sooner than 39 weeks. Also, the term of gestation (The time of the baby in the womb from conception to birth) usually decreases with every additional child. This can be tied to IVF because IVF usually implants one to two embryos. When the couple wants many embryos implanted, the chance for a multiple birth rises and then more complications and the higher chance for a short term birth. Low birth weight is also an issue with a short-term, multiple birth. "Low birth weight is almost always related to preterm delivery. Low birth weight is less than 5.5 pounds (2,500 grams). Babies born before 32 weeks and weighing less than 3.3 pounds (1,500 grams) have an increased risk of developing complications as newborns"("Complications in a Multiples Pregnancy."). Low birth weight can also cause a series of other defects like "mental retardation, cerebral palsy, vision loss, and hearing loss"("Complications in a Multiples Pregnancy."). With a multiples birth, inside of the mother Intrauterine Growth Restriction occurs because there are many babies inside of the placenta that are competing for nutrients in the mother. As a result, the placenta cannot support the many babies in the womb at once. The more babies you are expecting at once, the birth rate starts to slow earlier than normal because some of the birth defects and the low birth rate. "The increased risk for gestational diabetes in a multiples pregnancy [is the] result of the two placentas increasing the resistance to insulin, increased placental size, and an elevation in placental hormones. The risk of occurrence of gestational diabetes in a multiples pregnancy is still being researched at this time. In one study, an increased risk of gestational diabetes did seem to be apparent, but the doctors involved recommended that further testing be conducted"("Complications in a Multiples Pregnancy."). Now the gestational diabetes does not affect the babies only, it also affects the mother as she is being stressed from the multiple babies competing and the mother trying to feed and keep all of the babies healthy. It can also cause a miscarriage in which one or more babies are lost either in birth or in the womb. "Complications in a Multiples Pregnancy." Americanpregnancy.org. American Pregnancy, July 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

IVF helps patients who would be otherwise unable to conceive. The ultimate advantage of IVF is achieving a successful pregnancy and a healthy baby. According to CreateHeatlh.org IVF can make this a reality for people who would be unable to have a baby otherwise. For women with blocked or damaged fallopian tubes, IVF provides the best opportunity of having a child using their own eggs. IVF can be used to maximise the chance of older patients conceiving or patients with a low ovarian reserve. Couples with a male infertility problem will have a much higher chance of conceiving with IVF than conceiving naturally. There are laboratory techniques to facilitate this including intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). (PCOS)Polycystic ovary syndrome is common condition in which there is a hormone imbalance leading to irregular menstrual cycles. IVF has proved very successful in patients with PCOS, who will not respond appropriately to fertility medication in isolation. Patients with endometriosis, where parts of the womb lining grow outside the womb, may like to try IVF, as it has proved successful in this group. Premature ovarian failure: Women with premature ovarian failure or menopause can have IVF treatment using donor eggs, which typically has high success rates. http://www.createhealth.org...
Being bad is A lot more easier

To begin with I"d like to note that all of Pro"s arguments presume that a bad person has no conscience to answer to. I presume a bad person does have a conscience. With this in mind, I will address her arguments one by one. 1) When a person does things that make others suffer, they have to live with themselves. If they cant deal with the prompting of their own conscience, they may try to silence it using drugs or alcohol which could lead to a dependency on substances and have adverse health effects. It would be easier for someone to apologize and make amends. 2) Feeding one"s carnal desires only gives temporary satisfaction. Struggling with one"s own conscience, is something that has lasting effects. Resisting one"s bad desires, is easy if one distracts themselves with something good they enjoy, like music, art, building or fixing something. The results of channeling energy into something creative brings joy and a product of the creative effort. 3)Not everyone has sadistic desires, for those who do, they could derive genuine joy from helping someone instead of harming. 4) Even bad people need patience. Do you think that killers who shot up schools, churches, or most recently a night club, didn"t execute patience for the best time to act out their plan? 5)When someone looses control there are usually bad consequences to face. Are the consequences EASY? Most likely not. 6)Not every person who is good is being phoney. Some people are kind and considerate within their nature. 7) If one lies too much, eventually people catch on and they can"t be trusted. Not having anyone trust you must really suck. All we really own is our bodies and our words. If our words are false, they mean nothing and a person can"t build any meaningful relationships. If one needs to continue to meet people to continue to lie, they would end up being lonely from not having anyone who is close. 8) It must be very lonely to not have any love to give. This is the main reason that I don"t think it"s EASY to be bad!
Being bad is A lot more easier

Well, this is my first time debating with a woman. Hope it turns out well. To start with my argument, Being Bad Is Easier. Reasons To Believe:- 1) When a person is bad, they do things that makes others suffer. Naturally, making others suffer would mean that the person making the other suffer, is not suffering as much as the person being made to suffer. So that's easy. 2) Being bad means to feed your carnal desires that makes you want to be bad. And in this case, feeding these desires takes no actual struggle it just means making other struggle. And resisting ones desires is a struggle which bad people don't do. 3) Being bad and carrying out your sadistic desires gives you pleasure. And attaining pleasure gives a feeling of ease. 4) You need no patience. Now patience in the sense that you control yourself and be patient for something you're not going to get. Which in this case, You are. 5) You can loose control while being bad because that's just a part of being bad really. 6) You don't have to keep appearances. You are the natural you. You don't have to pretend to be something you're not. 7) Another facility that comes with being bad is, you can lie. You don't have to speak the truth and can make anyone belive what you want. Basically you are a natural liar. And you don't feel compelled to speak the truth. And if you talk to someone for the first time, They don't kniw whether you are a liar or not. 8) You don't care about others. And caring also takes effort and love. Which you can't give. These are just a list of the privileges that bad people have. Thanks...
Being bad is A lot more easier

Being bad is obviously, bad. But it's appears that being bad takes less effort than being good. With being good comes the responsibility, patience, tolerance and alot of other things which in case you are bad, isn't necessary. First round;- acceptance and a bit of opinionative speech. Second round:- actual argument Third round;- answer to opponents argument, conclusive words. Caution:- this debate is meant to be short and only has 2000 characters.
computer has done more good than harm

Well, I will start off by saying computers have done good things as well. "friends don't even bother to visit each other in person anymore"This is not necessarily true because I have seen friends visit each other even if the use computers. This is not true every time. "even the telephone gets less use due to computers. " Telephones are still being used, even if not as much as they used to, they are still being used for making phone calls.
The world would benefit if Pokemon existed

I believe the world would benefit if Pokemon were to come to the real world. Definitions: Benefit; Having more Pros than Cons about Pokemon existing in our world. Pokemon; Pokemon ["Pocket Monsters"] are creatures from a popular video game, and cartoon, franchise created by Nintendo and Game Freak. Exist; Having objective being in our world. Rules: 1: Round 1 is acceptance only. No arguments may be posted this round, or else you will lose. 2: No kritiks, trolling, insults, etc. 3: We're talking about the creatures from the Pokemon video games and cartoon. Suggesting that the video games already exist is an equivocation fallacy, and poor conduct. 4: BoP is shared. Pro (Me) will be arguing that if Pokemon existed, the world would improve. Con (Contender) will be arguing that if Pokemon existed, the world would suffer. 5: No new arguments in the 5th round. Doing so will result in an instant loss. Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance from Contender. Round 2: Constructive cases from Pro and Con. Round 3: Defenses and Rebuttals from Pro and Con. Round 4: Defenses and Rebuttals from Pro and Con. Round 5: Final defenses and rebuttals, as well as a summary of the debate. I await my challenger.
The world would benefit if Pokemon existed

When making my argument, I completely forgot that one crucial thing didn't exist; Pokeballs. Without Pokeballs, which is going to be difficult creating with our current technology, Pokemon won't be tamed very easily. Even if Pokeballs existed, like Con said, Pokemon are dangerous. THis begs the question; How does Ash survive on his journeys? I'll have to concede this debate, because 1) We can't tame Pokemon without Pokeballs, therefore survive. And 2) Muk destroys plant life, as well as Pokemon whose bodies contain fire. We'd probably go extinct! I thank Phenenas for accepting, and go ahead and vote him. I really forgot about Pokeballs, didn't I?
The world would benefit if Pokemon existed

I thank Pheneas for accepting. First, I would like to outline this debate. For this debate, we will assume each and every Pokemon exists in this world. Pro's Burden of Proof is to prove that the world would be better with these Pokemon. Con's Burden of Proof is to suggest that Pokemon will hinder our Universe. With that, let's get into this! Point 1; More social lives With a Pokemon, kids will want to find other people to do Pokemon Battles, and see who has the stronger Pokemon. The winners would gain experience as a Pokemon Trainer, and strive to get even stronger, and maybe becoming a Pokemon League Champion, if the people want. If someone loses, they could learn from their mistakes, and learn how to become even better Trainers. Either way, people are going to make new friends once they go exploring the world with their new Charizard or Pikachu, and battle other trainers. And these kids won't only have human friends, their Pokemon will also share a bond between them. When you go on vacation, and your Pokemon might like the area you're going to, you're probably going to want to send it out, and enjoy the vacation together. It'll be much more enjoyable with a friend than just by yourself, especially if your Pokemon's a close friend of yours. [Summary of Point 1: With Pokemon, kids will be more outgoing and social with Pokemon Battles, and any other events humanity would want to create. These kids will also become friends with their Pokemon.] Point 2; Individual Pokemon advantages Each and every Pokemon have special skills and abilities, which can be useful in certain circumstances. Their pokedex entries state such. Here's a few Pokedex entries, as well as elaboration on the use for these abilities: Chansey: "A kindly Pok"mon that lays highly nutritious eggs and shares them with injured Pok"mon or people." [Pokemon Black and White] These eggs are medicine, of sorts. They heal injuries, as well as diseases. According to many pokedex entries throughout the series, Chansey lays these eggs, therefore they are a renewable resource. Delphox: "It gazes into the flame at the tip of its branch to achieve a focused state, which allows it to see into the future." [Pokemon X] Delphox is able to see into the future. With this ability, we can see what natural disasters will come, and when. Chatot: "It can learn and speak human words. If they gather, they all learn the same saying." [Pokemon Y] Pretty much all Pokemon are only able to say their names (The dragons roar). Chatot, on the other hand, is able to learn and speak human language. We can train Chatot to interpret what Pokemon say, which helps with Delphox's ability to see the next hurricane or earthquake. [Summary of Point 2; Pokemon can help us take on difficult times, such as Delphox's ability to see an incoming tornado. Chatot can translate what these Pokemon are saying, so we can act accordingly to the Pokemons' ideas.] There are over 600 Pokemon, and I do admit that not all Pokemon are helpful to humanity. But the ones that are helpful, are really good for humanity. I'll be handing this debate back over to Con.
The Flaws in an Anarcho State

Well, actually, if you care to look at schoology (which I bet you haven't) on my schoology page, it CLEARLY states that I am in HONORS PRECALCULUS AND TRIGONOMETY WITH MR LAPILLE idiot! so, namiu chishigjarkal is an IFDIOTft!!! she is a fat urbasn fweahale and she fateres idiot i rape siste.r
The Flaws in an Anarcho State

Actually, according to law 46 of aerodynamical equivalence, your sister has been proven to be not hot, thereby invalidating any claims you have of your sister being hot. (Newton 46) To quote, "Dom sister not hot and is factual". (Newfart 46) Therefore, any attraction you might have towards your sister is invalid. The only situation in which you are attracted to your sister to the point of RAPE is if you are mentally unfit for society. Case closed. Now, nincomshart, I suggest you read the hypocritical BIBLE which says to RAPE people if you are a true Christian. Haha! Owned.
Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

Wow...! As a newcomer to this site, I really anticipated I would be able to engage in some good debating. I hated to see so many debates with so many stipulations (like...you have to have won at least 3 debates, or, you must be at least a college grad, or whatever), but after my two attempts at this particular debate challenge have been forfeited and all but conceded, with my opponents demonstrating little, if any, interest in this topic, and after seeing this opponent engaging in what appears to be unnecessary rhetoric, I must confess I now will strive to be more careful about who I challenge. Maybe I'll go on the forum and see if there's anyone who really wants to engage me in some serious debate about this topic. At any rate, since my opponent has chosen not to engage, I'll go ahead and extend my argument and see if s/he will oblige and become more engaged in the next round. If anyone else really would like to debate this topic with me, please send me comments in the comment section or in my profile page. For the record, I'm much more interested in exchanging thoughts than in winning debates, but I really thought this format would be a good way to process issues. I await my opponent's response (or any serious response from anyone). Thanks!
Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

Hmmm... apparently my opponent has forfeited or conceded this debate...? Not sure... It appears that s/he no longer is engaged in this debate, as it is difficult to see how his/her short response of "I disagree" for R2 contributes to this debate in any productive way. I'd love to hear his/her arguments and responses in greater detail, so I'll simply extend my argument and hope to hear from my opponent.
Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

My opponent admits that in nature it is obvious that homosexuality would drive a species to extinction if it were commonplace within that species as a whole. They have therefore conceded that the anti-gay nature-based argument has validity.Therefore, if the anti-gay community have an argument based on observations of animals in nature it would put the pro-gay activists at a huge disadvantage in any debates or cases they put forward in favour of LGBT rights if they were to never address or counter the argument from nature with one of their own.In essence I am saying that because the anti-gay argument is valid, the pro-gay argument is therefore necessary to counteract the anti-gay one in any and all debates.While it's easy to suggest that if both cancel each other out they should be dropped, this would not appreciate the validity that both have (and yes they are valid as even my opponent states that they are both making the same philosophical mistake but both are actually true arguments from nature's perspective.It is like saying that if Muhammad Ali won a fight all punches other than the one he knocked his opponent out with should have been dropped from the fight since they cancelled each other out and were equally valid and thus equally invalid in their essence.Debating is, in many ways a sport and hobby rather than a race to the conclusion of who wins or loses it. both sides will often make valid debates and yet both sides will have their arguments countered on very similar philosophical basis. The deciding factor on who wins the debate is merely which debater's style of debating is one of more artistic value.So, although I admit that both sides of the homosexuality argument have equality validity and philosophical fallacy in their nature-based points in favour of their sides, I do not at all think it would be correct to deem them invalid for debate and to assert that they should therefore be dropped from them.I suggest using the points as they are valid but of course never basing ones entire case for or against homosexual rights on the nature argument. There is no need to drop the argument, just to add other ones as well to have an well-rounded case showing many dimensions and aspects in favour of whichever view the debater holds on the matter of homosexuality.
Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

I take the position that arguments "from nature" commonly employed by each side of the larger debate on homosexuality are unsound and should be dropped from the debate.Note this particular challenge is not about the moral acceptability of homosexuality, but specifically targets the arguments "from nature" commonly employed in the larger debate.The anti-gay side often argues that homosexuality is "unnatural", and, therefore, should be condemned. I have heard this argument expressed by well-meaning, educated people. The pro-gay side often counters this argument by pointing out that using what is natural and unnatural cannot serve as a valid basis for justification or condemnation. I agree with this corrective.Nevertheless, the pro-gay side often proceeds to make the very same philosophical mistake it has just countered. How so? The pro-gay side often points to the fact that homosexuality, after all, does occur in nature, and many (if not all) homosexuals are born that way...and, therefore, this natural occurence should lead us to the moral acceptability of homosexuality.I believe this pro-gay version of the argument "from nature" is just as unsound as its anti-gay counterpart.I presume my opponent will agree with my initial premise...that both sides of the larger debate do indeed employ these common lines of reasoning. The issue at hand for purposes of this particular debate challenge is whether such lines of reasoning are, in fact, sound, and whether they should be dropped from the larger debate on homosexuality.I issued this challenge once before...only to be accepted by someone who forfeited after the first round...so I hope the opponent who accepts this challenge will commit to engaging in the debate to the finish...or, at least, if my opponent wishes to concede, I hope s/he will extend the courtesy of making that known so we can close out the debate in a timely manner (rather than let each round run its full course). And I will commit to this courtesy as well.I look forward to hearing from my eventual opponent.
It's time for English-Americans to assert their ethnic identity

I thank Brian for another excellent debate. Ladies and Gentlemen at the start of this debate I told you all what I stand for. Brian seems to be mistaken about my stance- I DO stand for F-ggots and gravy, I do stand for all of Englands repulsively alluring cuisine. The question is, how does one achieve this? Brian never told us how an English-American association will facilitate the promotion of English-American values, and my points still stand. -An English American Association will not be able to out lobby corporate groups -An English American Association will not be able to compete with other Ethnic Lobby groups -An English American Association will only undermine the only way of pushing English Agenda, id est direct action "The Italian-Americans' high public profile may be why every other restaurant in America serves Italian food" This point cannot stand in this debate because we have to consider the voracity of the appetites of the Italians compared to the classy decedance of the English. The reason there are no English restaurants is because the English did not base its culture around food, so an English American Association will not help out English Industry. There is also the role of organized crime in the success of Italian Restaurants, and I hope my opponent doesn't suggest that! An English American Association could help out English Actors I see no reason to believe this, because of their delicious voices, and English actor will always be doomed to being the enemy or bad guy. Plus, look at Gerald Butler, he played James Bond did he not? Did he need an English American Association? Of course not! Then what is the best way to promote the English Agenda? My idea about individual action still stands. The posh schools opened by Latvians were not influenced by the Latvian American Association-in fact the association just wanted to take a chunk out of the proceeds for its greedy agenda. Ethnic-exclusive lobby groups and organizations rarely have effect, and I have proposed a better model as to how English Americans can promote their ethnic identity. I beg, to oppose