BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools

'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned. CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that. ' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do *play violent sports* when it doesnt help them but why is *violent sports* in the curriculum. answer that. ' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist. But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.
Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools

what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that
Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools

CON has lost. CON's last statement was the following:'Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt. 'That entire statement is irrelevant. (S)He hasn't responded to the fact that no sports are violent, and the resolution is: 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools. ' Therefore, the statement 'but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt,' does not have anything to do with the resolution.
Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools

No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them, we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids. I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life. Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE. although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement
IVF Debate

It's problematic for couples who have trouble conceiving naturally to undergo In-Vitro Fertilization because of the side effects that occur with doing so. These include hot flashes, headache, mood swings, bloating, and more devastating effects. THESE would include OHSS(Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome), pelvic pain, heavy vaginal bleeding, abdominal pains, and weight gains of 10 pounds within a span of just 3-5 days.(http://americanpregnancy.org...) In addition to that lengthy and risk-implying list, these are the side effects that are added on to natural pregnancy symptoms and side effects. An average pregnancy's side effects include cramping, constipation, breast tenderness, blood in urine, and nausea, and it usually ends with those side effects only; more or less depending on an individual's genetics(http://www.mayoclinic.org...). IVF produces ALL of these average side effects, making it more reasonable to find a different way to produce offspring that has less side effects if you cannot produce naturally.
IVF Debate

There are many reasons why a couple are unable to conceive naturally, one in six couples are unable to conceive on their own. (Createfertitlity) Women can have blocked tubes meaning that eggs cannot pass through the fallopian tubes to enter the uterus. There are some older couples that still want to have children but their eggs and sperm are unable to fertilize on their own. Polycystic ovary syndrome is when there is a hormone imbalance that causes woman"s menstruation cycle to be irregular making ovulation less common. It can allow single mothers or same sex couples to be able to have babies, with sperm donation. Any unused embryos can be used to donate for research or for couples who don"t have fertilized eggs. With all of these great benefits and all the many reasons why couples can't conceive naturally, I see no reason why a person should not be allowed to make their own choice in how they conceive their child.
IVF Debate

The law of a country that provides IVF services would end up being put in place to evaluate the legality of the process on the account of offspring production. When a partner is dead, some countries, like Iceland, for example, do not allow the alive partner to be able to use his/her genetic material. In some other cases, like in Belgium and the Netherlands, it is only allowed when a letter is signed by that partner to authorize the usage of their genetic material. When the embryo is created, it also can be frozen for preservation up to a set time in some countries; Brazil has a limit of 3 years, and Spain and Canada has unlimited storage. A couple might need to be married in countries like Turkey, China, and Indonesia, before attempting IVF. In different lands, like New Zealand, it is insisted that you have "stable nuclear family" to raise IVF offspring. (http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com...)
IVF Debate

Yes there is a risk with the procedure, it can cause an ectopic pregnancy, or the embryo won't stick, but that happens with all pregnancies. There is always going to be a risk, with anything you do. 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic according to Mrs. Tenore from aafp.org, so it is a common sight to see even naturally. And yes, the stronger of the embryos will be implanted but that is only because they want the best oportunity to that embryo actually sticking, especially if tens of thousands of dollars are being spent to make it work, so that means that a few weak embryos will be thrown out, its not that big of a deal. Overall, I think that IVF pregnancies are a good thing. They are more beneficial than they are harmful. They allow couples who are infertile, to still have babies, they are close to a regular pregnancy once actually pregnant, and many more reasons. I think that IVF would be a good safe alternative for conceiving naturally.
IVF Debate

The advances in IVF are subject to criticism on how humanity is lost when producing artificially fertilized eggs. More religious people believe conception to be a holy act, and is considered to be something that doesn"t deserve to be interfered with by any means. In some cases, the eggs of potential offspring have to be checked in order to achieve maximum possibility of survival. Some aren"t used and they get discarded when it is determined that the egg will not survive. These "unworthy eggs" are then considered to be murdered because of how they are technically living. http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com... As I have said before, the embryos are discarded after they have been determined "unworthy". After they evaluate by culturing an embryo, they use the better ones of the bunch and implant one of these better embryos into the fallopian tube of the mother in waiting. A problem with this is how well the implant process will go when it is time to develop the selected embryo. (http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com...)
IVF Debate

Well personally I feel like if someone is already spending that much money on conceiving a child then hey might as well get a few more out for the same price. If a person has enough money to spend on an IVF then I think having another baby won't really hurt them that bad. If a couple who is infertile want several children then they have to go through the cost of IVF multiple times, unless several stick, then they get two babies for the price of one! And also, the 13-43% survival rate is higher than the 0% chance they have conceiving naturally. Any way having a baby is expensive, naturally, IVF, surrogacy, its all expensive so might as well try and make it as natural as possible. This way the mother can still go through an actual pregnancy. (https://glowing.com...) These mothers all say that once you are pregnant, the rest of the pregnancy is the exact same as a normal pregnancy, so it is a good alternative to conceiving naturally.
IVF Debate

The older a woman is when going into pregnancy, the lower your survival rates are for the offspring. The health of the women taking part of IVF has a great effect on how the pregnancy will go. In the U.S., from under 35 years of age, the survival rate is in between 41-43%; from ages 35-37 it is only 33-36%; ages 38-40, 23-27%; and if a woman is over 40, 13-18% survival rate. In other words, there"s already more than half-possibility that the embryos will even survive. With multiple implants it is understood that the possibility of success rises, but so does the number of possible children produced at the end of the pregnancy term. If a potential mother wanted to just have one or two children by the IVF process, and doctors added several embryos in order to at least have one child, it could turn out to be over the amount that she is looking for depending on her own genetic hindering. IVF costs a LOT of money as well, the range in cost being from $12,000-$17,000, and many insurance plans do not cover it. So, if the costs are paid for an unsuccessful session, there"s no going back, and the money has already been used. Conversely, if there are more babies produced than wanted or prepared for, then the parents of said offspring would have to struggle to figure out the costs of having an extra child, which they might not be ready for, and they might have to do something else about him/her. (http://americanpregnancy.org... and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)
IVF Debate

Well I believe in choosing what you get to do to your body, if religious people don't like the IVF pregnancy then I recommend them not having a pregnancy like that. But they don't get to put their opinions in for something that doesn't concern them. It is an embryo, not a living thing. Bacteria is technically alive but no one cries when they kill a bacteria when they wipe down their counters. Discarding a weak embryo doesn't do anything except prevent an unhealthy child from being born. If a baby would be born with possible problems that could be painful or hard for the child, why do the cruel thing and try and make them live with potentially painful problems their whole lives and have them suffer. Yes with IVF the parents get to chose some characteristics that normal pregnancys don't have a say in, but what's wrong with that? Everyone has a preference with some things ( http://chooseagender.com...) I would rather have my first baby be a boy but that doesn't mean if I have a girl first that I will love it any less. Everyone wants something a certain way so what's the problem with actually being able to make a decision like that? Or decide that having a healthier baby is more humane than purposely having a sick child because that's what "God" wants? (Sorry if I offend anyone's religion)
IVF Debate

The advances in IVF are subject to criticism on how humanity is lost when producing artificially fertilized eggs. More religious people believe conception to be a holy act, and is considered to be something that doesn"t deserve to be interfered with by any means. In some cases, the eggs of potential offspring have to be checked in order to achieve maximum possibility of survival. Some aren"t used and they get discarded when it is determined that the egg will not survive. These "unworthy eggs" are then considered to be murdered because of how they are technically living. ( http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com...)
IVF Debate

Actually according to madeformums.com, the natural pregnancy includes many of the side effects you have said occurs with only IVF pregnanies, hot flashes, mood swings, and several other side effects are very common with natural pregnancy due to the hormone imbalance due to any pregnancy. But even with these side effects, many women think that they are worth going through if it means having a child. Pregnancy is never easy natural or not, so some temporary discomfort isn't that big of a problem when creating a life. Another positive reason for IVF would be that there are is a less likely chance of the baby having any birth defects. Only the strongest embryos are inserted into the uterus for development, so the weaker embryos with more of a chance with a defect would not even be used. This creates a safer pregnancy for mom and baby.
Abortion (Pro life)

Opening Argument: Abortion, for most women who choose to have it, will take place within the first month of pregnancy - in fact, the vast majority of women who get abortions are fairly decided about that path and do not generally take long to get the procedure - which can either be done through oral means or through inserting a pill into the vagina, which is referred to as a 'medical abortion', or a 'surgical abortion', which involves inserting a tube into the vagina and dilating the cervix and manually removing the zygote, embryo or fetus. Given that most abortions do take place within the first month, it is only the zygote or embryo (collection of embryonic cells) that is being aborted and not a developing fetus. A zygote does not become an embryo until the third week, and an embryo does not become a fetus until the sixth week. [1.] http://news.bbc.co.uk... The reasons as to why some women abort can be varied - this is what statistics on abortion from the U.S state: 25% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'were not ready for a child'. 23% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'could not afford a baby'. 19% of surveyed women had an abortion because they were 'done having children'. 8% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'do not want to be a single mother'. 7% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'were not mature enough'. [2.] http://abort73.com... (see 'why do abortions occur?' In addition, direct medical problems either with the embryo or fetus or the woman can be why a small percentage of women abort - a heartbeat isn't detected until the third week of the embryonic stage, which, if you add another couple-few weeks for other physical abnormalities to develop, takes you past the first trimester of pregnancy - thus, the women who actually do get later abortions are those who have been told that the fetus is abnormal in some way. This is of course excluding the instance that they themselves are the ones with the problem - as in this scenario, fairly early abortions take place. It's important not to solely focus on abortions that are done for physical reasons, though. Women who abort for other reasons are usually not psychologically ready to have children and bare the responsibilities that motherhood brings. They are either too young, too financially unstable, or without sufficient support from a partner and family members (mostly, it's a combination of all three). This naturally begs the question of how humane it would be to actually *deny* women abortions when they are in no fit state to be taking care of the child. From any rational perspective, there is no sense in bringing a child into a world in which it may be unwanted, poor, and without adequate care from the people who both made it. Children require financial stability, emotional stability (e.g, two present parents) and guidance. They do not receive any of the above things with parents who are ill-equipped for parenthood.
Abortion (Pro life)

Okay. I'll start by saying I'm pro-life. What makes life "life"? If you want to go at an atomic level, all that humans are is series of chain reactions of the transfer of kinetic and potential energies. Our thoughts are basically more of the same. That being a matter of religion and biased answers for the most part, I think that a literal human cell is the basis of life. That's where one can truly tell the difference between a blob of atoms or an organized cell. It's phase two of three, where phase one is unorganized atoms, phase two is organized atoms, and phase three is the completion of the cell from phase two split a bunch. If you think about it, phase two doesn't truly end until the organism stops growing... so when most humans are in their early adulthood. Is a baby "more complete" than a fetus? Sure, but definitely not complete. They have a different number of bones, even. I know you discussed brain development and whether not s baby can feel pain or not, and if that reason justifies abortion. Just because a baby's brain hasn't developed doesn't mean that it's ok to end their life. Legally, a person isn't dead until their body and brain don't respond anymore naturally (not being kept "alive" artificially... but they are alive without all of their brains legally anyhow). It's similar to a person that can't feel their arm due to brain issues, specifically. Is it ok to cut it off just because they don't have the mental capacity to feel or use it? Although this is a flawed analogy, is it ok to end the life of someone who is unconscious because they are incapable of knowing?
Abortion (Pro life)

I"m pro-life. Just think about it, your murdering. Not just anyone, your own child. It doesn"t stop you from being a mother. It makes you the mother of a dead child. Furthermore, one of the most common things pro-choice people say is "her body, her choice." Well excuse me, but that makes no sense at all. Abortion is killing another person's body, killing one's own body is called suicide.
Abortion (Pro life)

Rebuttals: 'So if a woman wants to kill her child, she can? Because she is not ready for a baby? She kills it? ' We previously established (in my opening argument) that abortions are performed in the early stages of pregnancy - it is mostly either the zygote or embryo that is aborted, thus, one can't really consider the process akin to a woman killing her child. In the first few weeks it has no heartbeat = thus, it is not yet alive, in the strictest sense of the word. 'I think everyone would much rather live the be torn to death. Even if it's living in poverty, and not getting the best 'nurturing. ' The first sentence doesn't even make any sense. In response to the second one: not taking into account the woman's financial situation, and then making her keep the child which will in turn expose it to hardship that will negatively impact it, is absolutely not the way to go. There is nothing rational in bringing a child into a world in which it has little to no chance of thriving; children need nourishment and stability - both emotional and financial. I'm amazed that my opponent thinks it's more humane to allow a living human child to suffer and go without, but deems it inhumane to abort a cell or tiny collection of cells. 'I honestly don't think that a woman in America will fall into poverty and be on the streets if she gave birth to a baby. She could just give the baby up for adoption. ' If a woman is already in poverty (as many women who get abortions are), the likelihood of it improving is extremely slim. If anything she will become *more* poor as she will have an another person to provide for. Children are a huge financial investment - one of which you are legally expected to take care of until it reaches adulthood. As for giving up the baby for abortion - there is no guarantee that anyone would want it. It's all very well if the child gets adopted as a baby, but if it has to grow up in a care system, it will have no parental guidance or support.
Abortion (Pro life)

Sorry for the late response but this is should not be about what the women wants. So if a woman wants to kill her child, she can? Because she is not ready for a baby? She kills it? I think everyone would much rather live the be torn to death. Even if it's living in poverty, and not getting the best 'nurturing.' I honestly don't think that a woman in America will fall into poverty and be on the streets if she gave birth to a baby. She could just give the baby up for adoption.
There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true. Please provide your absolute best piece of evidence that Darwinism is true. (One kind of animal mutates into another kind of animal over millions of years by random mutation and natural selection. Every animal and plant breeder knows there are limits to the variations. (genetic homeostasis). the maintenance of genetic variability within a population through adaptation to varied or changing environments and conditions of life as a result of shifts or resistance to shifts in allelic frequencies. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... I suggest we focus on just your single BEST piece of evidence.