BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

When the issue of multiple birth arise, there can be problems with handeling the children if they were not prepared. If they did prepare for one child but end up with two, the implications could cause money complications and stress to the parents. The risks of this are much higher in IVF. Other risks arise of gestaional diabetes, pre-esclampsia, premature labor, hemorrhage and fetal growth problems. These can cause long term issues for the children. Premature labor could lead to possible death in the child which can result in psychological problems for the parents. The parents went through so much to have the problem of losing the child or in other cases the child have life long issues. The science isn't 100% perfect and that's why these issues arise. If the DNA is messed with they child can have problems because the science isnt fool-proof. For these issues, there is no way to fully check if the problems will occur or if they child will be completely healthy.
IVF Debate

To that I say that there are many things to do with excess embryos such as having them frozen. In that instance parents can choose what they want to do with the frozen embryos. Frozen embryos can also be donated to science for testing or even to other families to have babies. More than a few embryos are made so that parents can use PGD to determine which embryos they want to use as healthy babies. Only 4 embryos are ethically allowed to be put into the woman's uterus. This type of procedure is so controversial and stressful that the parents must be informed of all the repercussions and effects from the procedure. Doctors and therapists are recommended to the couples. Dealing with the financial side, parents would know in advance how much the procedure costs therefore they would be able to prepare for the baby and all of the baggage with the IVF procedure. There are many support groups to help the parents deal with all the stresses.
IVF Debate

Excess embryos are often frozen but in circumstances where to many are created they are stocked up greatly. In https://ispub.com... , the abundance of embryos which will later be killed or stuck there till used. The amount of embryos made is to much for the amount of childern to be produced. There must be a moderation when it comes to the creation. This can cause issues in social and mental ways. If the parents feel as if they are killing the children they could have psychological repercussions. Also social in ways of religious views and family. If both of those are combined it could make a couple feel alone and without support. Also the economic issues with having the embryos frozen for such a long period of time. The couple would have to be very financially stable in the circumstances.
IVF Debate

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a test used to determine if genetic or chromosomal disorders are present in embryos produced through (IVF. PGD screens embryos before they are transferred to the uterus so couples can make an informed decision on how they want to move forward. Embryos unaffected can be selected for transfer to the uterus. PGD is often recommended when one or both partners has a history of heritable genetic disorders, or if one or both partners is a carrier of a chromosomal abnormality, also if he mother is of advanced maternal age. PGD is used to determine which embryos will be the healthiest and to ensure a healthy pregnancy. Sex determination is often a reason of PGD because parents want a specific sex of baby. HLA matching can also benefit from this. HLA matching is when embryos are chosen based on blood type or other factors in order to match a sick sibling. According to http://en.wikipedia.org..., PGD is mainly used to determine which embryos are healthiest and also to increase pregnancy chances.
IVF Debate

Ethical issues have always been around the use of invitro fetalization in main concerns: what happens to those embryos that are not used? Only a few embryos will survive. Through the procedure outlined in http://www.cdc.gov... , one of the many embryos will be killed. The creation of many can also be frozen but other problems will rise such as property rights of divorced couples. It is unethical to just seperate the parents from having the ability to the children. Families with many embryos frozen will also feel obligated to have more childeren even if they went in to have one or two. According to https://ispub.com... , the frozen embryos stock has added up and putting the "children on hold" can be ethically frowned upon. If the couple were to pass away the embryos would not be held and would be ultimately destroyed. Potential life would be killed in the process
IVF Debate

IVF can be very psychologically and financially stressful. The stress cannot be entirely avoided, but it can be reduced by a staff that helps normalize the experience as much as possible. Joining classes or groups and talking to other IVF families can help to cope with these stress situations. It is also very important for couples to go through concealing and to make sure that they don't loose sight of their relationship. Doing research and understanding the type of budget IVF needs is the very first step in doing IVF. It its very expensive therefore careful consideration must be taken. According to http://www.usatoday.com..., European and American scientists have developed a simplified process that would only cost about $265. A human embryo doesn't need much beyond basic solutions, a steady pH level and constant temperature is all.
IVF Debate

As stated in http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org... , it can be problematic for couples to undergo IVF. The idea of "having to have a family to be happy" is the thought of many couples who many not be able to conceive naturally and for those, they rush into things to quickly. This can be a substantial problem for those because IVF is expensive for many going upwards of $12,000. IVF though allows for high success rates in child birth, comes with the complications of social and economic issues. For the child, if sperm is donated for the embryo to be created they will have social stigma of not having a father that could possible cause psychological issues. Couples also who cannot conceive because of age will also have social issues and even health. Stress on the body can take its toll and for an older women or gentlemen to have to wake up in the middle of the night frequently and have the stress of raising a child could cause them health issues. For the couple to surely want to be artificially inseminated, according to the article, they need to first go to counseling which in result could deter them from making such decision.
IVF Debate

According to the article http://www.lajollaivf.com... there are many benefits to having IVF done. IVF allows for anyone to have baby, single women and men, especially couples who have had a difficult time conceiving. It allows for a higher chance of conception and evening being able to plan the right time to have the baby. The baby has a higher chance of being born healthy and extra sperm or eggs can be frozen and saved to use for another time. IVF also allows women who have been through menopause have a baby because their uterus can still hold the baby. Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is also possible, allowing couples to find chromosomal deficiencies in an embryo before it gets implanted in the uterus. According to the article, women with missing, damaged, or blocked Fallopian tubes were some of the first successful cases of IVF. Also it can help men with infertility problems by combining IVF with ICSI being the only way for men with low sperm count to still be able to biologically father a child. IVF hold numerous benefits for anyone trying to conceive a baby. It also has a very high success rate.
Energy Drinks are BAD for you.

Im simpily saying that energy drinks are unhealthy. Energy drinks today are very popular but can do horrible things to your body. The caffeine-containing energy drinks usually contain a wide range of ingredients, with different brands having similar, but not identical formulations. One ingredient they all have in common is a form of sugar such as sucrose (table sugar) or glucose. Some have amino acids (e.g. 'taurine') while herbal supplements such as Gingko biloba, Echinacea, Ginseng and St John's Wort are present in many. They also usually include guarana (a caffeine-containing extract from a South American plant). Now ill let whoever accepts this know, i enjoy energy drinks but i have stopped drinking them as of about a year ago, after finding out about the serious health risk.
Establish socialism in small town cities

http://www.dsausa.org.... Now in my own words. Capitalism control the markets and setting the prices of goods and services. Creating a class struggle of man as while creating a social order run by capitalism so people can buy means of goods and services also creating poverty. People see them as bad because their economic theory is based on self-interest. Even thought I am an unrepentant capitalist, I totally agree many people who are capitalist are not good moral humans and lack love and compassion. Further, many are just plain jerks and think this economic system is some new-found religion and are rigid in their thinking. The rich are stereotyped as greedy and heartless because of large amount of earnings they make and yet no clear value to society. They are almost seen as parasites off the sweat of others. However, this is where people get confused. Capitalism itself is not bad, nor are all capitalist. Capitalism is good. People confuse capitalism with corporate America and do no consider the alternative socialism for what it is, fake. Jealously is the cause of people thinking capitalism is bad, not compassion People think capitalist lack compassion and an alternative system like socialism will bring more peace and justice to the world. In fact people think they are better people just believing in anti-capitalism. Wrong. The real poverty in the USA is a spiritual poverty, not material poverty. The poor in America would be the super rich in most places in the world. If you think capitalism is wrong, live in a post-communist country for a few years. (Posted on in Economics)n14;A039; There is a saying. Who evere controls the market controls the world. And that being sayed you have the means to control the people as while meaning there is no such thing as freedom or expression of man, women or child meaning they have no indvialism or self thought just what you teach them of your ways to buy your goods and services to stay wealthy.
Male Circumcision is ethically no different from Female Genital Mutilation

The resolution is that Male Circumcision is ethically no different from Female Genital Mutilation. This will be with regards to the reasons, effects, and justifications for the respective practises. I will defend the resolution, and the BOP is on me to prove that:1. The reasons for Male Circumcision, generally, are no different than those for Female Circumcision2. That the Effects are for the most part similar respectively. 3. That the justifications provided for either are interchangeable, and the practicioners of both use the same justifications as the other in general. My opponent, on the other hand, must prove that FGM is 'totally different' from MGM, he/she must prove that:1. Male Circumcision is done for different reasons, (plural) than FGM2. Male Circumcision has completely different effects, (plural) than FGM. or, 3. That the justificatins, (plural) for MGM are different than those for FGM.Male Circumcision, or MGM, Male Genital Mutilation, shall be defined as the removal of the foreskin, frenulum, and riggid band of a male- specifically of a minor. Female Circumcision, or FGM, Female Genital Mutilation, shall be defined as any of the following:Type I: Also known as clitoridectomy, this type consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or its prepuce.Type II: Also known as excision, the clitoris and labia minora are partially or totally removed, with or without excision of the labia majora.Type III: The most severe form, it is also known as infibulation or pharaonic type. The procedure consists of narrowing the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without removal of the clitoris. The appositioning of the wound edges consists of stitching or holding the cut areas together for a certain period of time (for example, girls’ legs are bound together), to create the covering seal. A small opening is left for urine and menstrual blood to escape. An infibulation must be opened either through penetrative sexual intercourse or surgery.Type IV: This type consists of all other procedures to the genitalia of women for non-medical purposes, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization
Poodles are better than Rottweilers.

You say Rottweilers are good because they are good guard dogs and peel with tattoos have them. Poodles are good because they are French, they can fit in a wedding ring box and you can just throw it away if you don't like it. It's small so nobody will hear it. Tattoos are ugly! Yuck! Plus, why do you need to be guarded? It's not like crime exists.
Creationism Should Not be Taught in the Public Sphere of Education

Now onto my points. My opponent has made the resolution: "Creationism should not be taught in the public sphere of education. "This means he must prove that in every scenario possible, creationism should not be taught in any sort of public education. I have two problems with this, and I'm sure the public sphere of education has some problems with this resolution as well. Contention1: It should definitely be taught in college. Lots of colleges are technically public education, including state universities. Religious studies is a program offered by state universities [1][2]. State universities are technically public [3]. Now my opponent will agree that creationism is a religiously supported theory. This means that it would be ridiculous for someone to take a religious studies major, but not be able to learn the various theories on creationism. That's all I really need to say there. Contention 2: Possibilities of high school classes. You can take world religion classes at some schools, and even if I'm wrong, it's a valid possibility. To extend from my point above, if you take a world religion class, you should most definitely be taught the various theories on creationism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry if this is a bit underwhelming to anyone reading, but that's all that really needs to be said. I've adequately negated the resolution, and I don't really think those points need to be expanded. Thanks for reading. Sources:[1] . http://religiousstudies.as.nyu.edu...[2] . http://catalog.wvu.edu...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Creationism Should Not be Taught in the Public Sphere of Education

Round one shall be reserved for acceptance only. Round two shall be reserved for arguments only (No rebuttal). Round Three shall be reserved for rebuttals only (No new arguments), and round four shall be reserved for closing arugments & rebuttals/ conclusion. First of all, I want to thank my opponent for taking up this subject with me. I'm sure it will be a great challenge and enjoyable experience for both of us.
Destiel is a better ship than Wincest

Castiel's love for Dean and Dean's love for Castiel is so tragic. They get jealous when they each kiss someone else. Dean kisses Anna in season 4, episode 10 and Castiel clearly doesn't like it. Castiel kisses Meg in season 6, episode 10 and Dean is ready to bite somebody's head off. One of the sweetest moments is in season 6, episode 7: DEAN: "Well you better tear up the attic. Find something to help Sam." CASTIEL: "Of course. Your problems always come first. I'll be in touch." It's not very vague, and you can clearly see why Destiel is a much better ship than Wincest. I know Sam and Dean have been through a lot, but Dean and Castiel have been through much, much more.
Destiel is a better ship than Wincest

Destiel is a much better ship than Wincest. Dean shows signs of his bisexual side many times while both Dean and Sam show signs of jealousy throughout the seasons. For example, there is a Garth (a hunter) in season 7, episode 8, "Time for a Wedding", who hugs Dean just before leaving. Dean also has a connection with Ranger Rick in season 7, episode 9, "How to Win Friends and Influence Monsters. The conversation went like this: BOBBY: "D*** thing's eating Rick." DEAN: "Man I like Rick." (SAM and BOBBY look at DEAN. BOBBY closes his eyes and fires up into the tree. A humanoid creature holding one of RANGER RICK's arms falls to the ground. That was a hint of Dean's bisexual nature. I could show you more of his clear bisexual nature, but now I want to show you how Dean and Castiel are clearly a couple. In season 6, episode 20, 21, and 22, the both of them show signs that they care about each other without actually saying it. Episode 20: CASTIEL: "It sounds so simple when you say it like that. Where were you when I needed to hear it?" DEAN: "I was there. Where were you?" Episode 21: CASTIEL: "Dean, I do everything that you ask. I always come when you call. And I am your friend. Still, despite your lack of faith in me now your threats, I just saved you yet again. Has anyone other than your closest kin ever done more for you. All I ask is one thing." Episode 22: DEAN: "Listen to me. Listen, I know there's a lot of bad water under the bridge, but we were family once."
Destiel is a better ship than Wincest

Wincest is a much better ship because there is so much chemistry and past. Dean has always put Sam in front of him and everything else. He carried Sam out of their burning childhood home when he was just 4 years old. What ever Sam wanted Dean would give it to him even if he wanted it himself. After Sam died he couldnt function at all and sold his soul for Sam to be alive again. Dean was unable to kill Sam when he had killed a hunter and was going to kill Jo. Even though he had been told by both John and Sam to kill him if he went to the bad side. Sam and Dean have alwyas been there for each other.
Should taxes rise on fatty foods.

Different types of fatThere are many different types of fat, good fat and bad fat. ' Fact: Trans fats and some saturated fats are bad for you because they raise your cholesterol and increase your risk for heart disease. But monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats are good for you, lowering cholesterol and reducing your risk of heart disease. "[1]Good fats can include things like nuts, olive oil, soy milk, and fish. Most of these also have protein in them. Trans fat is bad fat and can include things like candy whole fat. Omega 3 is also another good fat. It helps your skin, hair, and can even reduce risk of heart disease. [2]So my adversary saying all fatty foods are bad and the prices should be raised is false. I am going to break down his contention at the start and show not all fatty foods are bad for youI have shown how some fatty foods are good and that negates his contention at its core. I have been on Omega 3 and eat nuts all the time and I like to think that I am in good shape and health. I have been down to 6 percent body fat at one point and could run a two miles in under 13 minuets constantly. Fat can be good when you portion it right and eat the right kinds. My adversaries contention is false and the resolution is negated. [1] http://www.helpguide.org...[2] http://www.webmd.com...
The F-35's capabilities are insufficient for US needs.

Quick Military debate. Round one is for acceptance only please, and Round 2 is for presenting primary arguments only, no rebuttals until round 3. I will be advocating that the F-35's capabilities are insufficient to the demands of the US military, and that another set of alternatives must me considered. Please only accept if you intend to finish. Unexcused forfeiture will be considered loss.
Gun Control

The John Adams quote refers to the fact that democracy has a tendency to destroy itself. The emphasis on individual liberty slowly degrades loyalties to groups and institutions, which results in hopeless factionalism. Once this happens, majority consensus becomes impossible and democracy collapses. It has nothing to do with government tyranny. The corruption comes from the people themselves, not the government. If 81% of Americans do not trust the government, then why aren't they overthrowing it? Do we have to wait until we get to 99%? Why would 81% of the population accept living under a government they don't trust to govern? Where are all these armed patriots with their AR-15s? The government already controls who owns guns. Just ask The Branch Davidians in Waco. The ATF found out that a package of inert grenade casings was being shipped to the compound, so the government rolled in the tanks and that was that. If you're worried about the government having control over who has the guns, that ship has sailed, my friend. No gun control is more likely to do harm than good. There is a very low chance that the government will become so tyrannical that it requires an armed coup. Even if this happens, an armed coup is extremely unlikely to succeed. Conversely, allowing citizens to walk around with unregulated machine guns has a high potential for unintended deaths. Gun accidents are already a major cause of death in the US, and taking more restraints off gun control only opens the possibility of more accidents.
Gun Control

Before posting my argument I wish to mention one thing; I'm just arguing for no gun control, but I have mixed feelings about the issue. I just find it more fun to argue against any, it being the most extreme.Now, for my final arguments.Even the founding fathers didn't feel that our system of government was beyond the idea of corruption. There was much infighting over how much control the government should have, as to uphold a strong country but also not become tyrannical.For instance as seen in this quote from John Adams, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."Also in a quote from Samual Adams, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."As you can see, the founding fathers knew that democracy is fallible.We cannot rely on the government to regulate itself, and bad people often seek such power. Remember, Hitler was technically elected. If the people were armed well enough, who knows, the holocaust may have been prevented.Because a tyrannical government turns its opposition into criminals, gun control against criminals would be easily manipulated.In response to, "But, we can't even get the majority of citizens to vote at all, so what makes you think a majority of citizens would agree to do something more difficult?" it isn't easy, but that is the point. It would take extreme situations for people to be willing to try.According to http://www.people-press.org... 19% of americans have trust in the government.Why do they keep getting elected then? For two reasons, to keep people they see as even worse out and because no one else seems to run.My opponent says,"Since you have answered yes to citizens owning heavy machine guns and not having to demonstrate competence before carrying them around, please kindly explain why. This is an insane idea." Because it gives the government control over who owns guns and what kind. It is easily abused.I conclude and thank you.