BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF debate

Going off the point you made there is no actual benefit to birthing a child with you one's genes, this is nothing but a mere ego boost to sterile couple who simply "need" their own kids. If the main concern of these individuals is to raise and nurture a child, there should not be any difference if the provenance is from one's genes or someone else's. The beauty of life being able to nurture them, and witness their growth and development both physicaly and mentally. It also seems that for some the fact of being able to dispose or freeze so many lives causes the most skepticism among society; as these are potential lives nothing but a blank canvas that will never be used. As a scientifical breakthrough it is absolutely astonishing the degree to which life can be manipulated, which also cause much concern among individuals as some believe that we collectively were not supposed to be altering life. "We arent god, we should not try to act like it" not to say that in actually there is no definite reason to why one should use IVF consideirng all of options that exist in our day and age. Whereas there are plenty of reasons that tell us IVF is not the best alternative. Citation : "General Article: The Pros and Cons of IVF." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
IVF debate

i notice you keep mentioning the problem of multiple pregnancies but in my previous argument i stated that a majority of clinics are doing away with multiple implantation's at once because of the issues you have mentioned. which means they are constantly making adjustments and accommodations for the cons of this procedure. and in response to " "deciding whats best for your child" is very subjective to each individual's beliefs, not to say that the main argument being the wonderful miracle of bringing life to this world, can be achieved through other means being adoption or even surrogacy." the whole reason people undergo this procedure in the first place is so both parents can have their own child, with their own genes so the child is in fact their own. and there is no debate in whether or not a child having an illness or "problem" is best for the child. any parent would die to have their children healthy and normal, it doesn't mean they hate their child with what they have, they just wouldn't want the child to suffer at all. no one could argue that fact. but in conclusion after evaluating all aspects of the IVF treatment i feel the the benefits far outweigh the problems surrounding it. It"s another technological advance that finally gives the people who can't have kids the option to, in ways not too impossibly attainable. citation: American Experience: TV's most-watched history series. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://www.pbs.org... (847) 662-1818. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://www.advancedfertility.com...
IVF debate

Going off the point you made in deciding the "morality" of things. It is very true that people have different mindsets and opinions on just about every single thing in life, but there should be at least a common ground when it comes to deciding for the life of someone else especially in this case when the life is that of your own child. Not to say that this concept of "deciding whats best for your child" is very subjective to each individual's beliefs, not to say that the main argument being the wonderful miracle of bringing life to this world, can be achieved through other means being adoption or even surrogacy. There is no need to bring countless lives into this world if they are going to frozen or discarded completely. There is also a big area of concern when consodering that a large number of IVF preganacies are multiple pregancies which can cause complications and even risks during birth. Twins and triplets are significantly higher compared with those for singletons, mostly because multiple babies tend to be born prematurely and underweight. The risk of early and late miscarriage as well as complications during pregnancy than non-identical twins, such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, which can cause serious health problems and death are a lot higher in multiple pregnancies than in singletons. Citation: "Risks to the Child." Multiple Births (twins) from IVF. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. "General Article: The Pros and Cons of IVF." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
IVF debate

in response to your argument, who really decides morality. what is moral to one may not be moral to the next leaving the problem at a stand still. no scientific medical breakthrough will ever make everyone happy, its quite impossible in fact. there is no denying that this process has been beneficial to a multitude of people who have otherwise not been able to get a chance at parenthood. one can't let one "ethical" dilemma to one be an "ethical" dilemma to all. it at the end of the day is up to who ever is undergoing the process. furthermore, ask yourself if you had the opportunity to decide whether or not your child had a mental illness, disease, or missing limbs or not would you chose any of those? no, or at least id hope not, that'd be quite cruel would it not? that is merely the question the patients are asked and they are only answering what most would and should answer. wouldn't you want the best possible life for your child?
IVF debate

It seems that the argument that you are trying to make is the fact that thanks to this process of genetic screening, one is able to carefully pick out what specific traits the baby will have. Which to some may cause uncertainty and skeptecism as the IVF parents are quite literally choosing the "best" baby; rulling out anything that may seem "inconvenient". It is also important to understand that the simplest form of biologically and therefore moral form of life, is the product of conception or the embryo, that can be described as human genetic material. In this case the entire possibility of a human life is either chosen or discarded. Not to say that these same lives can be put on hold indefinitely or possibly given up to "science" for research based on the decision of someone else. These very lives that were brought to this world based on the caprice of sterile parents, are also given away with the same simplicity with which they were brought to this world in.
IVF debate

actually according to any IVF website, there is a 40% success rate which, yes may seem low, but that is 100% more successful than those who aren't even capable of conceiving a baby in the first place, the "low success" seems to be very beneficial to many. however, there are tactics such as genetic screening of embryos that is very beneficial to patients." In theory, by testing the chromosomes of the embryos available for transfer, we can discard embryos with abnormal chromosomal arrangements and pick the embryo(s) for transfer to the female partner's uterus from those with normal chromosomes. There has been some controversy about whether PGD testing of early embryos before transfer will increase the chance of a successful outcome. The logic works for offering chromosomal screening of the embryos prior to choosing the best ones for transfer back to the uterus. " according to advanced fertility. also after the screening the potential for miscarriages decreases significantly, as aforementioned is quite possibly eliminates any birth defect of the child that would cause problems in a pregnancy before the operation would occur. in short, there are clear benefits to such a thing as this.
IVF debate

Although IVF grants sterile couples the ability to birth a child, there are also many ethical dilemmas that rise from the impact of the medical and moral aspects of this method of assisted human reproduction among these are the very provenience of the gametes as in the case of the oocytes and the sperm are furnished from the same parents, ethically, the problems arise from the lack of intercourse between spouses up to life of the embryos. Not to say that the fate and the number of the embryos; a big area of concern to be dealt with because, taking into account the low success rate, the multiple embryos required are eliminated to improve the survival chances of one or two embryos, in fact an abortion is made, and, from the religion point of view, a homicide of thousands lives for the sake of bringing a child into this world. Lastly with the new IVF methods, new types of experiments on embryos have also arised. Aiming to expand the knowledge on human DNA, on many aspects of immunological compatibility, in which case we are deciding the fate of life that has not even started. Citation "Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Www.cbhd.org." Ethical Dilemmas of Intra-vitro Fertilization. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2016. "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
IVF debate

there is that possibility of multiple pregnancies yes, but most clinics are now are trying to move to just one embryo being implanted per procedure because of problems like you had mentioned. As for the etopic pregnancy issue the chances of that happening are so few and far between that its not even a big enough issue to stop the procedure all together. people wouldn't have this procedure done if they had a very high chance of it failing. the real issues in the IVF treatment are the cost and and the psychological toll it puts on the human brain, and of course there are ways around the cost, With fewer drugs, the cost of a cycle is reduced at CREATE Fertility. There are also options for low-cost treatment, such as egg sharing and, in the future, our Walking Egg programme to eliminate the extremity of the cost. and they offer psychological counseling in the consultation appointment now to ensure the patients are stable. sources: http://www.createhealth.org... http://www.advancedfertility.com...
IVF debate

The main source of concern when addressing the controversy that IVF treatment has, is the many problematic circumstances that may arise from undergoing this procedure; among these are the possibility of multiple pregnancies as there is an increased chance of this happening, not to say that the likelihood of an ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy in which the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus) happening also increasing. When putting both of these factors together it can make for a deadly combination. As difficulties during ectopic pregnancies account for a shocking 10% of pregnancy related deaths in the US. Which really makes you question the morality of the procedure. Not to mention that this leads to an increased number of malformations and sick babies, because of the genes that the parents are passing down. Citation: "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. "Ectopic Pregnancy." OBGYN.net, an Online Community for Medical Professionals. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
IVF debate

for years couples have tirelessly pondered the question oh why they can't have kids and how it can be made possible for them to have kids. through modern research scientists and doctors have finally come to an answer, Invitro-fertilization or more commonly known as the IVF treatment. this treatment allows for the infertile mother and father to conceive with their own eggs and sperm. through a simple surgical process. this break though has benefited couples in so many ways, old couples now have a chance to conceive because this procedure maximizes that chance. also, this allows for couples who are still unsure as to why they cant conceive to finally know after the IVF consolation, which is been a large problem for years because couples haven't been able to figure put why this was happening and now they have a way to fix it. and lastly woman who have suffered from pre-menopause can actually receive donor eggs to conceive where as before that was not even a possibility. this has been a massive medical breakthrough and should be highly considered as a treatment for aspiring couples.
death penalty

Death penalty is an issue that should be judged as what is best for society. Society benefits by the equal punishment granted to heinous crimes determined to be punishable by death. Abolishing the death penalty would create a moral loss in America. U of Chicago Professor D. Joseph Thompson establishes the three tiers of criminal punishment: death, felony, and misdemeanor. Assuming that the death penalty is banned, then first degree murders are now equal to crimes punishable by life in prison or extensive prison sentences. In theory, America would have to re-evaluate its penalties, and reduce the tiers lower tiers of punishments to realign the system. If any solution exists, America should encourage more cases punishable by death. Prisons are overcrowded, American taxpayers are paying to keep criminals alive and well in prison, and many laws that are on the books are given reduced punishment because the American justice system cannot handle additional cases. For example, DUI charges and possession of marijuana, should be punished as deserved, but they are not because of overcrowded and expensive prison systems. The solution to this problem is the privatization of prisons. Prisons give out contracts to food, telephone, and utility companies to provide services to the prisons. These contracts are no-bid and underpaid by these companies. If prisons were run as businesses, and these contracts were competed for by corporations, then they would pay the government higher prices. This would increase government revenue, boost the American economy, and save American taxpayer dollars.
Title IX Does more good harm than good

~~~~~~ Rebuttal ~~~~~~ ///Yes there are three choices, I totally agree, don't get me wrong, but schools TRY those last two tactics, rarely do they work. /// My opponent states that the other two prongs of compliance rarely work when tried by colleges. This means that they are capable of working. This admittance renders my opponent's argument that to be in compliance with IX a school must cut programs and/or players invalid. ~ Since I have rendered my opponents only argument invalid, shown that Title IX is good because it promotes equal opportunity, and my opponent has not put forth a shred of evidence in support of the resolution that Title IX does more 'good harm' than good I have successfully negated the resolution and urge a Con vote.
Title IX Does more good harm than good

1. //This statement is misleading, a school does not have to have proportionality when it comes to athletic enrollment to meet IX requirements. . To be in compliance with title IX a school must meet at least one of these three requirements: 1. ) Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR 2. ) Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR 3. ) Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex [&]. // Yes there are three choices, I totally agree, don't get me wrong, but schools TRY those last two tactics, rarely do they work. For example in Pennsylvania 23 programs have been cut, in Washington 14 programs have been cut, in Michigan 17 programs have been cut, in Ohio 25 programs, in New York, 34 programs, in North Carolina 15 programs, and in California 78 programs have been cut! And this data is from 1983! Imagine how many have been cut since then! Add all the states together and there are 460 programs across the country! And this data is from 1983! Imagine how many have been cut since then! It is estimated that this number has tripled! That's 1380 programs that have been cut due to Title IX! In addition to these programs, there have been 170 wrestling programs, 278 baseball programs, and 712 football! Cuts are STILL being made to men's sports! This is insane! //It is unfortunate that my opponent missed this before posting this debate// I'M SORRY OK? Sheesh. .. .. just let it be. .. . Conclusion: My opponent has yet to make some points on why title IX does more GOOD THAN HARM. My opponent has stated one source, which is wikipedia.
Title IX Does more good harm than good

~~~~~~ Defense ~~~~~~ ///For example if a college has 67 men who want to play sports, and only 47 girls, then that school would have to cut 27 men from their teams! That's equal! /// This statement is misleading, a school does not have to have proportionality when it comes to athletic enrollment to meet IX requirements. That is only one of the three prongs that a school can satisfy. To be in compliance with title IX a school must meet at least one of these three requirements: 1. ) Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR 2. ) Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR 3. ) Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex [&]. Therefore a school does not need to cut athletes to follow IX. ~ ///I'm sorry again for the typo, please lets just forget it. /// It is unfortunate that my opponent missed this before posting this debate. He should have looked over the debate overview that is made available before actually posting a debate before simply confirming that everything was to his liking. I will not be dropping this argument. ~ ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///1. TOO equal opportunity/// I have effectively refuted this point in my first point of defense by stating that proportionality is not the only way to be in compliance with IX. ~ I look forward to my opponent's response. [&] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Title IX Does more good harm than good

I'm sorry for the typo and the misunderstanding, in the comments i thought you were talking about the topic, like title IX... but sorry... Definitions accepted. To refute my opponent's points: 1) "promotes equal opportunity" this it does, but it does too well, in fact it does it too much. For example if a college has 67 men who want to play sports, and only 47 girls, then that school would have to cut 27 men from their teams! That's equal! 2) I'm sorry again for the typo, please lets just forget it. ----------------Main points 1. TOO equal opportunity For years, the only way that a university could inoculate itself from Title IX litigation was to have athletic participation mirror enrollment. In other words, if 58 percent of students were women, then 58 percent of athletes had to be women. Universities trying to meet this criterion struggled to attract female athletes. But, all too often, they resorted to the surefire method of balancing the equation: eliminating men's teams. More than 90 universities cut men's track and field, and more than 20 cancelled wrestling. Colleges have cut hundreds of wrestling teams, along with dozens of men's gymnastics, tennis and track and field teams. Men's swimming is also taking a bath. Remember Olympic gold medallist Greg Louganis? He polished his art on the University of Miami's championship swimming and diving team. That team no longer exists. In 1971, the year before Title IX became law, fewer than 300,000 girls participated in high school sports, about 1 in 27. While women comprise approximately 54 percent of the enrollment in the 832 schools that responded to the NCAA's 1999-2000 Gender Equity Study, they account for only 41 percent of the athletes. This violates Title IX's premise that the ratio of female athletes and male athletes should be roughly equivalent to the overall proportion of female and male students. I will bring up more agruments in my second speech -------------------------Sources http://espn.go.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.now.org... http://www.eastvalleytribune.com...
Title IX Does more good harm than good

~~~~~~~ Definitions ~~~~~~~ Title IX - An act passed by the federal government that outlaws discrimination based on sex at a federal level. . http://www.dol.gov... Good - promoting or enhancing well-being. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Harm - the occurrence of a change for the worse. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Equal Opportunity - The right of all persons to be accorded full and equal consideration on the basis of merit, regardless of protected group status. . http://www.kumc.edu... ~~~~~~~ Argument ~~~~~~~ Title IX (XI) does more good than good harm because IX does good by promoting equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is good because it is a concept that works to end discrimination based on factors outside of a person's control such as race, gender and creed. This increased the well-being of women to whom it was allowable to discriminate. In contrast IX does not do any good harm because good harm is a phrase that is inherently contradicting. A thing can not be both good and harmful. This is of course referring to the act itself, not the consequences of said act. For example torture is a harmful act that can not objectively be classified as good, but the outcomes of torture can lead to good things happening such as the gaining of information that protects the lives of the innocent. A harmful action for the greater good is still a harmful action. Therefore IX does more good than good harm because it does not do any good harm. I look forward to my opponent's response.
The benefits of the Mongols and their empire outweighs the harms.

The Resolution pertains to the Mongol Empire that was began by Genghis Khan. The Mongols were tolerant of religion. The Mongols' religion was tied to the land from which they came so they did not ask other people to convert to their religion. Therefore, during the Mongol Empire, religious tension decreased allowing religions to spread further and more cross pollination of cultures. Increase of trade. The Mongols valued trade because they could tax it. So they kept the trade routes, such as the Silk Road, safe from thieves, raiders, etc. This reinvigorated cross Eurasian trade and ideas and products, moved throughout the world. It was said a man could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other without fear of being robbed. This trade created a cross pollination of cultures, for example, rice became a staple product of the Persian diet because of the Mongols. Also, because of the Mongols, gunpowder was introduced to Europe along with many other products and ideas that lead to European Renaissance. Mongol culture when pertaining to their women protected women's rights. Because the Mongols were herders, their culture were less patriotic and more egalitarian than other religions and cultures during that time. For example, women were allowed to serve in the army, even though few actually did. Therefore, because of the three main reasons the benefits of the Mongols in history outweighs the harms.