BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

According to http://www.fertility-docs.com..., the analysis of embryos can help avoid serious genetic diseases. The genetic screening can decrease the chance of multiple birth and prematurity. There are over 50+ diseases that the genetic screening can test for. These screenings can detect sickle cell anemia which assures that a pregnancy will result in a baby without the disease. According to http://www.advancedfertility.com..., miscarriage rates are lower after the screening. The screening would help a couple if they are both carriers of a recessive disease (cystic fibrosis). Couples with balanced chromosomal translocation are normal, until they try to have a child. This is where the genetic screening would come into play, they would be able to transfer normal embryos with the correct chromosomes to reduce their risk for miscarriage and birth defects. All in all, genetic screening would help decrease any diseases the baby could have, and prevent miscarriages.
IVF Debate

According to "Ethics of Designer Babies" from https://embryo.asu.edu...; advances in IVF have made possible the creation of a designer baby, which encompasses selecting the sex of the baby, eye color, hair color, athleticism, height, and even athleticism. Making these designer babies would divide society into those than can afford to have these medical procedures done and those who cannot. This would lead to economic divisions creating genetic divisions and ultimately determine social hierarchy in means of the genetically modifies and those who aren't. The article on this site also argues that parents already hold substantial control over the development of their children and these advances of IVF would ultimately give them too much and leave little room for the child to develop on their own with so much genetic influence on the behalf of their parents.
IVF Debate

Some IVF procedures that can help eliminate these problems are fertility medications that are prescribed to stimulate egg production. Multiple eggs are desired because (according to http://americanpregnancy.org...) some eggs might not be able to fertilize after retrieval. IVF stimulation protocols in the US (http://www.advancedfertility.com...) involve the use of 3 drugs. GnRH-agonist such as Lupron, GnRH-antagonist such as Ganirelix or Cetrotide. FSH product (follicle stimulating hormone for the development of multiple eggs), and HCG to cause final maturation of the eggs. These types of drugs will help prevent the development of multiple eggs. Also, it will help prevent the over stimulation of the ovaries which can lead to discomfort for the woman. So the use of different fertility medications that are regulated will help prevent any damages or overproduction of eggs in the woman.
IVF Debate

Although what you said may be true there are also many problems and risks associated with undergoing IVF. According to the article from http://ideas.time.com... "When IVF Couples Regret Conceiving Twins" couples who undergo IVF have a 20%-30% chance of having at least twins wile regular pregnancies have about a 3.3% of having two or more babies. In the case of the IVF talked about in this article the parents were not ready for two children and for this reason IVF can be a lot harder on parents who expect only one baby when the chances of having 2 or more greatly increase (at least 17%) with this procedure. As read on http://americanpregnancy.org... IVF can have a series of unexpected side effects and risks such as a 10 pound weight gain in 3-5 days, infection and damage to the bowel and bladder and like mentioned before the higher chance of multiple births. IVF can also bring up extensive medical costs as just one cycle ranges from $12,000-$17,000 and typical insurance plans don't cover fertility treatments. As couples grow desperate for a child they tend to fall in debt as IVF procedures usually require more than one cycle as highest success rates are only at 43% and the lowest at 13%. Due to the medical expenses necessary IVF proves to be much more expensive than a natural pregnancy where IVF is not needed.
IVF Debate

According to the article from http://www.lajollaivf.com......, "Anyone can Have a Baby". IVF gives a chance for anyone to have a baby regardless of family status or sexual orientation. Nowadays, single women, men, gay and lesbian couples can have children. People who have infertility issues can have babies. Women with missing, damaged, or blocked fallopian tubes can carry successful IVFs. Men too can have issues with fertility, according to the article, they can have an "intracyctoplasmic sperm injection" (ICSI), to extract a single sperm and inject it into the egg"s cytoplasm. IVF can increase chances of conception. Many couples choose in vitro fertilization because it helps them conceive more quickly. IVF increases the chances of having a healthy pregnancy and child. In the article, "Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis" it allows couples to identify any chromosome deficiencies before it is implanted into the uterus. People can control when they can have the baby. This is because couples don"t need to try to get pregnant naturally. IVF gives couples control over when they could be pregnant and when it will be born.
IVF Debate

There are many legal issues revolving around the ownership of eggs. One of the greatest issues is deciding who, in the case of a divorce or separation, gets to keep the eggs considering that a male sperm and female egg were required for fertilization. There are also cases where one of the parents wishes to keep the eggs but the other wants them disposed. The implications with this are also affected by who paid for the procedures to get done. Another issue involving egg ownership would be deciding who would be the better care taker of the eggs in the case that they were developed into babies. The final issue would be deciding what to do with eggs in the case that neither parent could pay to store them but do not wish to dispose of them. This information was gathered from http://www.asrm.org...; and along with the facts stated in the previous arguments In Vitro Fertilization is not beneficial because it raises many ethical issues like designer babies (social separation), an unsure future for thousands of embryos, and increases the likelihood of twins and miscarriages. It also increases the chances of harm to the fetuses and mothers, and the idea is too dominated by money and ownership to be socially stable due to those that have more money having the upper hand when dealing with issues involving IVF and life itself.
IVF Debate

The basic steps of IVF (http://americanpregnancy.org...) 1. Fertilization medications are prescribed to stimulate egg production. 2. Eggs are surgically removed. 3. Male is asked to give a sample of sperm. 4. Sperm and egg are mixed to fertilize. Then they turn into embryos. 5. The embryo is placed into the uterus of the woman. The reality of having multiple births is 24% in all IVF's procedures ever (http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...)! IVF is the way to go for couples who cannot have healthy babies the natural way. IVF can prevent diseases from happening in babies before they can develop from the embryo. If one does end up with multiple babies, there are choices on what to do with them. IVF can help embryos be donated to science in order to further human societies and help other humans in need. The procedure is fairly simple only removing the sperm and egg cells to ensure that they will be fertilized. Carefully choosing which sperm and egg cells are healthy enough to produce healthy babies.
IVF Debate

There are many issues involved with multiple births, which more commonly than not involve the fetus rather than the parent. This issues involve low birth weight, premature births, and even death(miscarriages). This is all associated with the low availability of nutrients considering that they have to be divided among multiple fetuses rather than just one. Miscarriages are often associated with the mothers' body not being able to support the strain which multiple fetus impose on them. As stated in "What do I need to worry about with a multiple pregnancy" from http://www.asrm.org...; 1 out of 3 pregnancies with more than one fetus with will naturally reduce its number very early in the pregnancy, so for some parents this would already be like losing a child. Prematurity would have a great impact on the baby as in many cases they have problems with their lungs, stomach, and bowels. Issues like these may even result in death. Risks of pregnancy complications increase with every fetus in the womb as there are more chances of having toxemia, seizures, gestational diabetes, and even dying. This is due to the lack of nutrients in the mother available both for her and the fetuses.
Everyone in the world should be gay.

Irish people have to eat their babies, and according to someone somewhere, that is right. And considering gay people aren't eating their babies, unless they are cannibals which is entirely different, what they are doing isn't half as wrong. Also, gay people would bring down the population of the earth, but, as one of the comments wrongly stated they would, would not make the whole human race extinct because gay people still have use of their reproductive organs.
Everyone in the world should be gay.

Well, if the lord our god isn't a credible source, let's look at another unbiased source, republicans. Bachmann, Palin, Pawlenty, Santorum and Cain all say it is a choice. what do you say now? Marcus Bachmann even does ‘repairitive therapy', which miraculously turns a homosexual person, straight. Just like that! So if it isn't a sin, why can we do that, and why would so many intellegent and amazing angels from god say so?! repent! :O
Everyone in the world should be gay.

Being gay should be illegal. You don't agree? Then let us look to the good word of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ! Leviticus 18:22 says "A man shall not lie with man as with a woman." What do you have to say to that, little missie? No response? I didn't think so! So, either repent right now, or burn in hell! As far as gayness being hot, I cannot argue there. But, it is still an abomination! For more, here is a link to my church:http://www.landoverbaptist.org...
The Most Accurate Way To Tell If Someone Is 100% Ignorant Without Saying A Word

The only thing one can conquer, is themselves. If you conquer anything else, you have failed. By conquer, that is to say for one to face their darkest and most twisted memories and projections of their subconscious once and for all. Everyone has an evil carnival inside them full of tricksters and monsters that role-play your distortion, as the surface of water becomes distorted when you throw vibrations through it.
The Most Accurate Way To Tell If Someone Is 100% Ignorant Without Saying A Word

Is there a reason to conquer? Any reason other than happiness? The advancement of our civilization, you say? Well once again, why do we want to advance so much? To be happy. To fulfill our life goal - to be happy. We don't build skyscrapers or space stations because... well I don't even know, the only real reason I can think of is to 1. Advance civilization, 2. Generate revenue, and 3. Extend our lives into space. All of those can and will lead toward happiness. I do like the quote you gave me, but to say the ones who are happy will be in pain, while the ones who conquer will be happy is just assuming that if you're already happy, you won't do anything productive for yourself or society to make you even happier or more people around you happy.
The Most Accurate Way To Tell If Someone Is 100% Ignorant Without Saying A Word

They do not live in this reality; they live in their reality. They expect the best for themselves and their clique; they expect the worst for everything else. They do not solve issues that do not relate to their experience - most of the time, issues are not solved at all, or very reluctantly by having no choice, or by force of another. They are distracted by everything except life. They live in the past; plan for the future, with no regards for the present. They never learned how to not say anything when they do not have an answer to a question or circumstance; they say things, just to say something. They use quantity over quality. They use their heart over their brain. They are hypocritical and delusional. They do not want to be criticized, while on the other hand, they criticize others. They do not argue; they grief. They choose dwelling over discipline. They do not construct; they deconstruct. Their entire life is personal, not practical. They say they live life to the fullest, without understanding the notion that there is no such thing as "fullest" in a Universe beyond human comprehension - that such statements of absolution are solely a medium for compensation towards depravity of psychical security. They have little to no experience / knowledge, yet insist they are right over those with mountains of experience / knowledge. They hold on; they do not let go. (It can differ from distinguishing where there weakness is, as some individuals hold onto A, but not Z; others hold onto Z, but not A. Albeit the purpose of doing so is verily accurate in both cases.) They do not reason; they rationalize. They interact with this Universe as to treat themselves or to turn it into a toy. They are pharisaic; they are not sympathetic. They live through other people's experiences and stories. (This is ironic considering how personal they are; however there is a difference between living in definition and living in desire.) They choose money over mind; life over luxury. They rather do things that last temporarily than to do things that last a life time. When they fail, they dwell. When they win, they rub it in. They do not reason; they react. They do not enter a discussion to debate ideas; they enter to express their disgust - they do not use evidence; they use emotion. They do not appeal to facts; they appeal to their feelings. They do not see with their brain; they see with their eyes. They do not have self-humility, self-recognition and self-discipline. They never change. They never become. They never let go. They never accept. They never think. They never cared. The only thing that matters to one whose life is shaped around envy and stupidity, is anything that distracts themselves from all of which advocated such.
Religion's Immunity

When it comes to religion, theists will accept anything that is taught to them regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis. In fact, the more far-fetched the tale, the more the theists love to eat it up. That is in essence the core aspect of their beleif - blind faith. To believe in something with no basis, proof or without the support of logic and reasoning is exactly what makes it so special to those who automatically proclaim it to be fact. To us it's the "easy way out" and obvious opression, but to them it's corageous and a testament to their character that they would be so bold to go against science, factual evidence and all the nay sayers, all in the name of God. This is, of course, because they actually believe that God is in fact holy and that they are on a moral crusade to save themselves and hopefully those around them. Now, I agree with you that religion's immunity should not be granted, however, that is not what you asked for in this debate. You asked why religion should be immune, and to that I have a few ideas that I figured I would attempt to debate. However first I would like clarification on a few things. I would like to know are we talking about the Chrisitian religion specifically, all monotheistic religions, or all religion in general?
Religion's Immunity

Why should religion be immune to criticism from the atheist community? I'd like to challenge any real theist to this debate. For example, when the Danish Caricatures were drawn, the Danish government had to give a public apology (even though they shouldn't need to in a government where there is free press) about the cartoons. Even though the Muslim protestors killed hundreds over it, the Danish were the ones who had to apologies. Now, when say, Steven Colbert does a skit on President Bush, you don't see the Republicans burning down Steven Colbert's studio (they would be the ones paying for that action). Why is it that we grant religion immunity when we grant nothing else (even tense ideologies such as political affiliation) immunity from reason, logic, science, and law? I believe that religion should not have this immunity.
Religion's Immunity

It seems my opponent has forfeited the final round and so I will reiterate the main point that I have been trying to make all along. That God's law is above man-made law. God's law says that abortion is wrong. The United States law says that abortion is okay. I believe theists will accept the penalties imposed by human law if they choose to do something crazy as say bomb an abortion clinic. Their actions are wrong, yes, and they are not immune to the penalties of our legal system. To say that they are is completely false. So while I don't think that they should be immune, I feel as though Pro should recognize and understand why religious groups sometimes fight for immunity it not all but CERTAIN situations. For instance a religious Jew might choose to not show up to work if he is scheduled to show up on a Saturday, his day of religious observance. That is wrong (he is disrupting his business) but he should be immune from punishment because he had religious reasoning for hiss less than dangerous action. Thus religion should give immunity to people SOMETIMES, but not always.
Religion's Immunity

If God were real, wouldn't you fear him? Wouldn't you fight for him? Wouldn't you do everything to uphold the values past onto you by an almighty, infinte being who holds your destiny of eternity in his hands? If you answered yes, then I have already won this debate. The point is that to theists, God IS real. He is ever knowing and all powerful. They believe that he gave us rules. They believe that he gave us tools, like the bible and the evangelists, to help spread his message of peace and love (even if that comes in the form of war and torture, apparently). Regardless, many people believe in this God. Many politicians, powerful political figures and rulers believe in this God. Many citizens believe in this God. And because of Gods power and God-like qualities, he is above politics, he is above man, meaning he is above man's logic and reasoning. We don't have to understand him. The point is that we can't. The point is that all we can do is trust him and have faith. Thus if that is the entire point, then why subject religion to critism? If you do, it means you're missing the point of blind faith. Theists know better then to question. God would be disappointed. It would be blasphemous. And as far as atheists questioning, well theists sincerely believe that they are doing the will of God and the right thing for their "ignorant" and "liberal" atheist friends who don't know any better. They are protecting them from eternal damnation by continuing to uphold the word of God without question and promote God's will here on earth. They truly believe with 100% certainty that they are doing the right thing. Their faith in their God is above reason, science, logic and law. And that's that. To allow atheists to buy into those instead of into God would be promoting false idols or questioning God's godness. It's wrong. It's a sin. And it cannot be tolerated. Any questions?
There is no such thing as virus

I will just examine one case of the Zika Virus to prove my case that the medical research and funding system is a huge fraud and cover-up for dangerous chemicals that are the real cause of so called "viral outbreaks". You can apply this senario to all other so called "viruses". The concept of a virus is totally illogical. They simply can't exist and don't exist either. The images of so called "viruses" are all forgeries and digital manipulations of either bacteria, hormones, funguses or algae. Zika Virus - Think the Zika virus is responsible for all the cases of microcephaly in South America? Think again: There is no reliable scientific evidence linking the two. The developmental deformities are actually caused by exposure to toxic insecticide and larvicide chemicals, not Zika virus.But because Zika virus fear fits a convenient funding narrative for chemical giants and vaccine manufacturers, it is being played up by the corrupt, criminally-run CDC and the Obama administration to funnel billions of dollars into the hands of vaccine corporations while ignoring the real causes of microcephaly.http://www.naturalnews.com...CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, who famously headed up the "Denmark Study" that many claim disproved any link between autism and vaccines, has been indicted in Atlanta by a federal grand jury on charges of wire fraud, money laundering and defrauding research institutions of grant money.Poul Thorson is a scientist who formerly worked for the CDC, and over the last several years, he oversaw millions of dollars in grant money that was used to conduct research to "prove" that vaccines have no link to autism. Dr. Thorson's research papers include the famous "Danish Study" entitled Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)This paper concludes that thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative used in vaccines around the world, has no statistically significant link to autism. It is one of the key papers used by vaccination proponents who argue that thimerosal is safe to inject into young children. That Poul Thorson's credibility is now being called into question by a federal indictment of fraud and money laundering will, of course, have ripple effects throughout both the vaccine industries and autism support groupshttp://www.naturalnews.com...http://www.naturalnews.com...
There is no such thing as virus

Your first source just gives pictures that may have been misrepresented as ebola in one point in time, but never was there a link to a page from "the medical system" to prove that theory.As for this issue of Ebola being pesticides it very well may be, but you haven't addressed the Megavirus, feline leukemia virus, canine parvovirus, norwalk virus, mumps virus, SARS coronavirus, rabies virus, the list goes on and on and on.
There is no such thing as virus

Polio was only a problem between 1944 - 69. Thus, I don't understand your complaint? What is the sense of providing evidence for periods when there was no problem?I have shown evidence that polio is not a virus but is a result of pesticide poisoning. Did you not see the evidence?Photos of Ebola victims have been identified from other sources and causes. The medical system uses random photos which look scary as evidence of a particular disease when the true cause has been by chemical poisoning. Lumps on the skin are caused by exterior chemicals such as pesticides which cause such damage when not used with the proper protection equipment.http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com.au...http://www.aljazeera.com...