BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

IVF is problematic because a successful pregnancy is not guaranteed. Although couples may wish to reproduce this way there are many issues that they may come across. There's a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and premature birth. It can lead to multiple pregnancies which is dangerous for the the mother and children. Lastly it's expensive and takes both an emotional and psychological toll on all of those involved. "Why Choose IVF?" La Jolla IVF. N.p., 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

Yes, professionals do take detailed steps to provide a healthy embryo, however if there are excess eggs which was stated earlier, it becomes an issue of who owns the eggs. Sometimes it is an issue between the parents and the egg bank. For example, In York, a New Jersey couple had been participating in an IVF program at a clinic in Virginia when they subsequently moved to California. When the Virginia clinic refused to transfer the one frozen embryo that remained from a number of unsuccessful implantation attempts to their new fertility clinic in California, claiming that transfer was not an option according to the parties' disposition agreement, the couple brought suit. Then there is the issue of what happens to remaining eggs if a couple gets divorced. What if one parent wishes to donate the eggs? "The first American decision to consider the status of frozen embryos was Davis v. Davis, 1993. The parties in Davis participated in a frozen embryo program, and were divorced while unimplanted frozen embryos remained. There was no written contract between the parties and the clinic which froze the embryos. The wife wished to donate the remaining embryos to a childless couple. The husband, who did not desire to have another child, wished to have the remaining embryos destroyed. The trial court held that frozen embryos are essentially children, and awarded them to the wife for implantation. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that frozen embryos are neither property nor children, as those terms are traditionally used in divorce cases." Another issue is if one half of the divorced couple wishes to use the embryos to have children.For example Kass v. Kass, 1998. The wife in Kass wished to have the embryos implanted in her own uterus, while the husband again did not desire to become a parent. "Divorce Source: RECENT CASE LAW ON DIVISION OF FROZEN EMBRYOS IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS." National Legal Research Group, 2003. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

Yes while that is true doctors and medical professionals do take careful steps to try and make the IVF process as successful as possible. The first of which is making sure the female is producing eggs and if not then recieving donor eggs. Once this has happened, retrieving the eggs (if using her naturally produced ones) takes only 15 minutes or less according to "Attain Fertility." Next is to fertilize the egg which egg and sperm are mixed and incubated. They make sure a healthy and well-developed embryo has formed which they then implant into the female's uterus.-Attainfertility.com
IVF Debate

However the use of multiple embryos can lead to multiple births. Increased use of reproduction technologies has contributed to an increase in multiple births. Because IVF is so expensive some physicians implant three to five embryos to maximize the chance of success. As evidenced by the much-publicized "Octomom", some fertility specialists have been known to go to greater lengths. As a result, worldwide, 45% of IVF babies are high-order pregnancies (three or more fetuses). Avoiding Multiple Births in IVF." Avoiding Multiple Births with IVF. RESOLVE: The National Infertility, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2016. Also, with multiple births comes more danger. Carrying twins or higher-order multiples raises the risk of preterm births; low-birth-weight babies, with the possibility of death in very premature infants; long-term health problems. For the mother there is a higher risk of pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes and Cesarean section. Studies show that 56 percent of I.V.F. twins born in 2004 weighed less than 5.5 pounds, and 65 percent were born prematurely, before 37 weeks of gestation. Tarkan, Laurie. "Lowering Odds of Multiple Births." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Feb. 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
IVF Debate

Although leftover embryos is an issue, there are ways to deal and cope with it. One is to donate them to other couples who can't reproduce naturally. This gives them a chance to experience of having and raising kids even when they aren't able to reproduce. Deborah Bohn has had two children both born by the IVF process and had 5 unused embryos. She sent them to a clinic and said it was one of the most lifechanging yet unregrtable experiences in her life. Stephanie Smith is another female who had to decide what to do with her unused embryos although she made the decision to donate them to medical research. She states that although it wasn't an infertile couple, it was still a very good deed and a way to give back, and plus the fact that they weren't just being thrown away.
commercialization of sports is the way

sports mean fun. commercialisation of sports has not only bought the game but also the sportsmen. all big multinational companies have a say in the functioning of the sports authorities. SPORTSMEN HAVE THEIR OWN BRAND ENDORSEMENT. seems that they need to do modelling rather than sports. take sania mirza for example- won a single event and everyone made her the apple of their eye. result- failure. doing advertisements had become her job rather than playing tennis. commercialization just disturbs the focused sportsmen.
commercialization of sports is the way

"sports mean fun." Sport is competition. Fun is a value applied to those who may compete or view. "commercialisation of sports has not only bought the game but also the sportsmen." You cannot buy a game. You traditionally have a governing body or organisation that deals with structuring and rule management. Teams may buy sports players. It is a contractual clause. A salary for services rendered. Commercialisation however cannot buy sports professionals. A team may be sponsored which gives a team revenue that enables player buying. Obviously the ads themself cannot. "all big multinational companies have a say in the functioning of the sports authorities." All? Where did you pull this statistic from? Why would a revenue garnering company seek to change rules of a game? The game itself still gets played no matter the changes of rules. "SPORTSMEN HAVE THEIR OWN BRAND ENDORSEMENT." Apparently it is truer if it is capitalised. Yes sports professionals earn brand endorsement. Their skill is a tradeable asset in terms of salary and marketing, as is their affiliated team's renown. It is the individual's achievement that is rewarded. By striving to the top of their chosen field, they earn the ability to be marketable. It is a fair reward for years of training and success. "seems that they need to do modelling rather than sports." Some do both. Some model their own brands. Again, their success makes them marketable. "take sania mirza for example- won a single event and everyone made her the apple of their eye. result- failure. doing advertisements had become her job rather than playing tennis. commercialization just disturbs the focused sportsmen." A quick Google search shows your examples top ranking as 8th at the end of the 2007 tennis year. Her failure to win a singles tournament of high distinction indicates that brand marketing would be a wise career move before she becomes totally unmarketable. No one like to waste advertising money on someone of little renown. Brand sponsorship is a valid investment strategy for all professional athletes. Their careers tend to end earlier than other careers. Securing finances from those willing to legitimately pay them is hardly an issue. A claim of disturbed performance is rubbish. Those who win tournaments have equally or higher levels of sponsorship. Commercialisation of sport allows sports teams to gain revenue. Revenue equals better equipment, training and coaches. It allows players to develop skills under professional tutelage. It makes the formation of leagues and tournaments profitable. It allows such leagues and tournaments to become standardised because they are held to a high degree of value. Commercialisation allows the broadcasting of sports. It makes sports profitable to support, to develop. It motivates the search for new talent because talent is definitely marketable. If you wish to see non-commercialised sport, then walk outside and find the closest street match of your game of choice. That is your alternative.
Religion should be banned from any school related activity

The reason of my disagreement on this topic is because #1 People don't have the right to choose one's religious beliefs. #2 is because school and religion should not be inter-twined, it strays from main point of teaching public knowledge, not religious beliefs. #3 If every school taught religion in the class room, one's beliefs might not be taught, therefore causing an un-needed debate on religion. Therefore any religious teachings should stay in churches and homes. Not in public schools. Parents don't send their kids to a public school to be jammed with information that they may take offensively. This ends my first argument, I am looking forward to my opponent's argument. Thank you
Are You Intellectually Retarded If You Believe The Bush Administration's Version Of The 9/11 Attacks

Agree with contender on his former point. Shall elaborate. Anybody who doesn't understand that in order to initiate a total symmetrical collapse you must severely damage an object below its own centre of gravity is intellectually retarded. To not understand this is to not understand that pushing a brick down really hard on your roof won't make your house collapse. I consider burden of proof satisfied, given that the official story violates the Newtonian laws of motion and invents its own (self-contradictory) version of classical mechanics. Specifically, it gets around the law of equilibrium by ignoring it, and f=ma by claiming 1 x 93 gives a different answer than 93 x 1. NIST failed to test for the explosives residue it was pretty obvious was there, ignored the FEMA metallurgical report about molten steel, contradicted itself by first backing the "pancake" theory and then retracting its own position when this was disproved as physically impossible, contradicted itself by being forced to admit building seven collapsed at freefall speed for its initial eleven seconds, and conducted an "investigation" which was as far removed from science as any investigation in the entire recorded history of man. This was however, clearly to be expected, when said investigation was organised and supervised by the very same people who planned the attacks (aka Cheney, Rumsfeld, L. Paul Bremer, Bernard Kerik etc...) There is a mountain of evidence available in the public domain that the Bush administration's version of events is laughably false, including a stack of peer-reviewed research. Recently, physics professor David Griscom offered to debate any other physicist on the impossibility of the official story. Despite contacting over thirty universities, no physicist accepted. Professor Niels Harrit proved the existence of high-energy thermate residue at GZ, and that research has now been peer-reviewed at least four times by different people. In sum, there is no defence outside the stinking realm of deception and lies. If you believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, sanctioned by Cheney and his corporate goons, then you are either: a) stupid b) a liar c) a stupid liar.
Gun control

My opponent claims guns deter crime but drops all of my evidence that guns cause crime more than they deter. He drops my entire R1 case and the evidence in regards to concealed carry last round. He also drops the analysis of Kleck who says even assuming guns are a net good, there are some controls which were effective in reducing crime rates. This alone is enough to win me the debate. I did mistype—I argued the increase in gun ownership had no effect on the declining crime rate, something my opponent drops. My opponent claims guns will be smuggled in. This is no doubt true, but there are fewer drugs than there otherwise would be—also note my opponent contradicts his earlier arguments on drug criminalization, meaning the argument has no relevance. Further, this is assuming there is a gun ban. We control some drugs (e.g. alcohol) with restrictions but there is no black-market (usually). This means gun control can work, a gun ban cannot, and all I have to prove is that controls work—I have—and my opponent has dropped that background checks and at least 5 gun control laws have empirical support. Further, if citizens have no guns, there will be no firearm-related suicide or gun accidents, which is a significant benefit. And the cost of guns will increase (as the cost of transport increases), and basic economics tells us that higher prices = fewer people consume the good. Higher prices = fewer criminals have guns. Currently guns are easily accessible for criminals—something my opponent drops as I argued the gun supply would fall 15%. Giving guns to the cartels is immoral and everyone agrees, but this really doesn’t prove that gun control is bad but that the government is dumb. Research has isolated the effect of the assault weapons ban and has found that removing the ban caused hundreds of deaths in Mexico (1). So restricting guns prevents thousands of murders. This alone is enough to vote Con. Conclusion: My opponent drops all of my case, he drops that the CRIMINAL gun supply would decrease, he drops that concealed carry laws increase crime, and he drops that there are 5 gun controls which work. This means it is incorrect to say that all gun control is futile. This is a clear Con vote. Vote Con. 1. http://www.slate.com...
Gun control

Intimidation is often a gun owner's first line of defense. An armed citizen with a gun can be a powerful deterrent to criminals- without anybody being harmed. There are no studies on this topic because intimidation cannot be measured, unlike deaths. It is not a concrete thing that can be proved without interrogating criminals, and even then is uncertain. But it is a real effect- would a criminal or even a hired man want a confrontation that they aren't being paid/rewarded for- especially with an armed person? "The increase in gun ownership may or may not be because of the increase in firearm ownership" I'm sorry if I don't understand you here, you probably mistyped something here. Firearm ownership IS gun ownership Gun control works to a limited measure, but there's a thin line between dictator-like control and control for the people. People have the right to defend themselves, and they will do so. However, if guns cannot be obtained, they will be smuggled. In 2007, officials seized 150,000 kilos of smuggled cocaine. According to the Interpol theory that seized smuggled material is only 10% of the total, 1,500,000 kilos are smuggled into the US. And the number is growing daily. If guns are banned, criminals will turn to smuggling. They will have guns, but no civilians will have any firearms. Completely defenseless. Lastly, guns in America have little impact on the cartels. Most guns flow from Mexico to the US, and the only weapons from the USA in Mexico are police weapons. When the cartels kill police, they take the weapons that the American government gave to the police. This makes them even more overpowered and able to sell more drugs and guns to the US. Why is no effort put on this? http://www.michaelshouse.com...
Gun control

Banning guns is not the answer. When guns are gone, blunt objects follow, then strangulation, fire, and poison. Banning guns has halted rampage shootings, but it does not address the issue of people killing each other. We need to focus on enforcing existing laws, not concocting up new ones. Gun ownership also have a practical defense use. Gun ownership has increased by more than 5% since 2001, and gun murders are at their lowest rate since 1981. To quote Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, "The facts are that every time guns have been allowed " conceal-carry (gun laws) have been allowed " the crime rate has gone down."(1) The fact that tougher laws would stem the flow of guns to potential criminals isn't entirely true. If the guns were legally bought, then yes, it would help. But think about what criminals do. They break the law. Sell drugs- and those aren't legal. The government has little flow over that. Firearms were responsible for 33,636 deaths in 2013. Drug overdoses totaled 43,982. Instead of blaming guns for deaths in the US, we should focus on banning recreational drugs. Instead, they are becoming legal. Guns are intended for defense use. What are those recreational drugs intended to do? They have no good purpose, making people crazed and experience hallucinations. They waste lives. Guns, on the other hand, save lives. *http://www.factcheck.org...
Gun control

P1) Guns increase crime “Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”(1) The vast majority of the research suggests the presence of gun in the home increase suicide, homicide, and accidental risk. If this is correct, reducing the amount of homes with firearms would decrease suicide, homicide, and accidental risks. Another study using “data from 26 developed countries”, the study found “where guns are more available, there are more homicides”(1). Guns are positively correlated with the homicide rate. P2) Gun ownership would decrease As noted above, gun ownership increases violence--both intentional and accidental. This means if the gun supply was reduced, there would be less firearm and overall violence. Law abiding citizens would turn in their firearms. This means fewer accidental deaths and suicides would occur, according to the evidence I provided. 5% of criminals had stolen their firearms, 10% borrowed it, and 8% traded for it (2). This means banning firearms would at least reduce the gun supply by 5%, and maybe 15%. It is also possible they traded for legally purchased firearms, so the gun supply could fall 23%--almost one quarter. This would significantly increase the price of a firearm. Increased prices decrease consumption. Therefore, as gun ownership would decrease in both law abiding and criminal spheres, death rateswould decrease. C) Controlling guns reduces the crime rate (1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...; (2) http://www.pbs.org...;
Gun control

Gun control is an unnecessary thing, and gun ownership should not be barred. Guns don't kill people- people kill people. In most mass shootings, the killer always takes his/her life. They started the attack with the full knowledge that they would die, and carried through with it. This shows that they WILL find a way to kill people-- whether with knives, arson, or other methods. This can be prevented by keeping a closer watch on mentally ill people and improving their welfare.
should iggy azalea be banned from the us

First off, we must point out the fact that Pro provides no evidence for Iggy Azalea getting banned from the USA. There's really no argument there at all, thus possibly giving me points for more convincing arguments. Now, let's look at what you said about her getting banned again. To get banned from a country, you must- a) Do something illegal in that country (depending on what you did depends on how long) b) Be suspected of promoting hatred or violence (such as rallies) c) Be on a list of suspected or confirmed terrorist or spies or d)Have been Convicted of a crime and have not received a pardon. Now we can also look at being deported as an option. Being deported is defined as expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime. What they're saying here is that she needs to have a criminal record. Upon researching, I have not been able to find any criminal record for Iggy Izalea. When looking to deport someone or ban them from a country it is important to have a firm reason. There is no firm reason to deport Iggy Azalea. Sources: http://www.answers.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://immigration.lawyers.com...
Socially, the republican party is superior.

I was actually talking about democrats. However, I can argue against libertarians. 1. Though I am republican, I am not completely mainstream and do have more conservative views. Refutals 1. I agree with the drug policy. 2. Immigration is not good for America. For one, these immigrants that you do not propose deporting use government services and do not pay taxes to sustain them. They also take jobs away from some American(Though many may disagree, I support cutting welfare to encourage people to get jobs). 3. I am for the outlaw of abortion. Though a mother may not want a baby, the baby should still have a chance. Even in cases of rape. The only exception is if the mother's life is in danger. 4. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays cannot achieve marriage because the union would not be between a man and a woman. As long as the nation calls it marriage, gays cannot have it. 5. As far as education goes, I believe that many republicans that I live near support the simplification of education and cutting the budget down. For now, I will rest.