BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

Pre implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is being used increasingly at the Fertility Institutes to dramatically improve the chance of a successful IVF pregnancy in couples where prior IVF failures have remained unexplained. It has been estimated that over half of all IVF failures are not able to be explained by an apparent problem with embryo "quality". For many couples however, this statistic is quite misleading. Most IVF centers look very closely at the appearance of embryos under the microscope as they attempt to determine a "good" or "high quality" embryo from those of lesser quality. Generally, embryos are given "good" marks when they demonstrate an appropriate number of cell divisions at a given time in their growth cycle, when the individual cells of the embryo appear to have a uniform size and when there is an absence of cellular "fragments" that may or may not represent problems in the growth progress of the embryo. PGD has offered physicians and scientists, for the first time ever, the ability to examine far beyond the superficial appearance of an embryo. We are now able to examine the most important internal genetic code of the embryo as well. And with these new genetic tools, we have come to learn that some embryos that appear on the surface to be of the highest quality may carry a genetic code that makes them poor choices for attempting to establish a healthy pregnancy. If you are a carrier for a specific disease, you can do genetic screening to ensure that you only transfer embryos without those markers. The genetic screening of embryos allows us to explain aneuploidy. Aneuploidy refers to the presence of an abnormal number of chromosomes in a cell " having 45 or 47 chromosomes rather than the expected 46. An extra or missing chromosome is the common cause of genetic disorders. It happens during cell division when the chromosomes do not separate properly between the two cells. Advances in the field have led to utilization of improved genetics technologies that allow assessment of all 23 pairs of chromosomes. ("PGS." Web. 28 Apr. 2016. . )
IVF Debate

Often surplus embryos are involved in process of IVF to substantially enhance the chance of pregnancy .Whether they are laboratory artifacts or not and when life begins are obvious questions. This puts a question mark on the "sanctity-of-life". if human life initiates at fertilization then ivf is experimentation upon a human being and should follow the norms of that type of research. moreover, discarded zygotes or embryos lost in unsuccessful implantations, at present a foreseen possibility of ivf, would be human. (Internet Scientific Publications, 2015) By freezing your embryos, it is basically putting your children on hold. not all embryos are replaced and not all parents indicate what should be done with them. This is not ethical, it is cruel. Frozen embryos: A 2005 study funded by the National Institutes of Heath found that of 58 couples with leftover embryos, 72% had not yet decided what to do with their embryos. (Eckman, 2015) Couples are given choices to either freeze their embryos" pay a storage fee, or have them completely destroyed. (Eckman, 2015) If one believes that embryos are considered alive at this concept.. This way it is a concept of killing or saving. (Fertility Care, n.d.) If you don't tell the clinic what to do, they thaw & discard: The embryos are taken out of storage by the clinic, thawed in the lab, and at that point they stop growing and dividing.
IVF Debate

It's not always clear why a couple is unable to conceive. Approximately one third of infertility issues are attributed to the female, one third to the male, and one third by a combination of problems. This can make it difficult to figure out exactly what is causing your infertility problems. In many cases, IVF combined with ICSI is the only way for men with a low sperm count to still be able to biologically father a child. Their only other options may be using donor sperm or adoption.Testicular sperm aspiration can be performed on men who can"t ejaculate sperm, including those with irreversible vasectomies, testicular cancer survivors, and men with low or no sperm count, blockages, and other conditions.With unexplained infertility, there could be a problem with fertilisation. Cases such as these may not be diagnosed until fertilisation is attempted in the laboratory. Although this would be a disappointing outcome, it is useful to be able to uncover such problems so that solutions can be reached for future treatment with ICSI. Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) is a specialised form of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) that is used for the treatment of severe cases of male-factor infertility. ICSI involves the injection of a single sperm directly into a mature egg. IVF can also be a great solution for patients who are unable to get pregnant through normal means, such as single mothers or same sex couples. Using donated eggs or sperm, they can use the IVF process to realize their dream of having a child, without having to partake in any unwanted sexual intercourse.For single women and same sex couples who wish to have a child, IVF can provide a great opportunity for helping them to become parents. Smotrich, David B. "Why Choose IVF?" La Jolla IVF. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
Scorpion Or Sub-Zero

Sub-zero is far superior. You have no evidence to support why Scorpion has better moves. This clip begs to differ (just watch from 2:50 on) [1]. Why does Scorpion run? Sub-Zero can not only freeze upon touch but he can throw balls of frozen ice which freeze anyone upon contact. All Scorpion can do is shoot a live serpent-like being from his hand. [1] http://www.youtube.com...
why im better than you

What did you just say about me, I"ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I"ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I"m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with saying that to me over the Internet? Think again. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You"re dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that"s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable face off the continent. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. But you couldn"t, you didn"t, and now you"re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. You're dead, kiddo, DEAD.
why im better than you

I argue that I am better than you because you are a little fury bitch. you cant even life m9. Your family tree is a cactus, because everybody on it is a prick. You're so ugly Hello Kitty said goodbye to you. It looks like your face caught on fire and someone tried to put it out with a fork. If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid. Do you have to leave so soon? I was just about to poison the tea. Your so ugly when you popped out the doctor said aww what a treasure and your mom said yeah lets bury it You are the reason people are blind We all sprang from apes, but you didn't spring far enough. I hear when you were a child your mother wanted to hire somebody to take care of you, but the mafia wanted too much. If you really want to know about mistakes, you should ask your parents. I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a smarter comeback than what you just said. Your mamma so fat she has to wear 2 watches because she covers two time zones. When you were born, the police arrested your dad, the doctor slapped your mom, animal control euthanized your brother, and A&E made a documentary that saved your life.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the existence of a higher force.

Hello. Primarily, agnosticism is generally categorized not as a religion, but as a non-religious "belief system." So your first point that agnosticism is the most logical religion meets a flaw in that it is not a religion. Secondly, agnosticism means "not to know." And unlike Atheism which requires a specific conviction against the existence of God, agnosticism deals with a spectrum of beliefs from "God may exist and I just dont personally know him," to "How could any of us really know." to "Im pretty sure He doesnt exist, but who knows?" This spectrum is so wide that to declare it as being "logical" is flawed. Perhaps you can call it common, but you can not call it logical as it can be argued that it is susceptible to the accusation that it internally contradicts itself within this spectrum. God bless.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the existence of a higher force.

You use, incorrectly, the term "beyond a reasonable doubt." In order for something to be logical, it need not be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," it simply need be logical. It is logical to say that your wife loves you even though no DNA sample or scientific evidence can prove it. It is logical to say "Harry had a dream last night" after Harry told you he had a dream. Could either party be lying: yes. Logic does not require fool proof TRUTH. Similarly, because the universe has a specific, intricate, beautiful design, it is logical to conclude that the universe has been designed and further has some kind of designer.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the existence of a higher force.

It does not, however knowing does. In any case every thought should be accompanied with a strong dose of doubt. In that way agnosticism is the most logical. The two situations are not completely analogous though. You could use DNA to prove that that child is in fact that man's baby and not another one that the nurse brought in but we have no real certainty of how the universe came to be or a similar test to prove the existence of a higher power beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible that the universe was always here, the theory of conservation and mass validates this idea. You spoke of order and intricacy; however, you must not lose sight of the fact that the universe in many other places is chaotic. With the infinite number of variables in the universe you are going to see some order and some chaos, it's a matter of probability. If you look at it that way it's not too odd to think of the universe without a creator. However, that doesn't mean that we can know that there isn't. My point is simply that both sides have sufficient data to where the most logical solution is to say that we can't know. Both sides have good arguments; therefore, we can't prove or disprove the existence of a higher power and
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the existence of a higher force.

Logic, however, does not require absolute proof, just reasonable proof. And just as a man that leaves the room for a cigarette when his wife is in labor returns to find a baby in the arms of his wife must assume that the baby was born, having not witnessed the birth, we too can look at the creation that is earth and assume that it likely had a creator. For if it didnt, the universe would be the only thing we could think of that was a creation absent of a creator. When pressed that man would have to concede "no, I dont have proof that that is my child," yet all available evidence says that it is. Similarly, with the world. From a logical standpoint: how could something with such an intricate design (everything from a cell to a tiger to a lake) not have a designer precede it? It defies logic to say that a design has no designer. It even further defies logic to say that this life has no recognizable design or that it is "random."
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the existence of a higher force.

True it's not a religion mental slip. I stated earlier that it is the "most logical belief" in the topic. The American heritage dictionary defines agnosticism like this: agï¿½nosï¿½tiï¿½cism (āg-nŏs'tĭ-sĭz'əm) n. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. http://dictionary.reference.com... I say that this is the most logical belief system because as philosopher David Hume proved you can't really know anything. Even through empirical evidence you can't see the connection or know that the connection actually exists from the cause to the effect. You may think that you are certain of something, but you can't know it. Therefore I see that you can't either know or not know anything, especially in reference to God or a higher power. Therefore by using epistemology we can see that agnosticism is the most logical.
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature. 1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud. 2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth. Quote from Quadrant - 'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.' Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook? 3. The hockey stick graph trick. An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature. https://climateaudit.org... 4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

First, I ask my opponent to refrain from wild ad hominem. CO2 has gone up. Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- . https://climate.nasa.gov...;The spike coincides with the popularization of cars, especially in the US, as the wartime production economy steamrolled on into an age of peace and excess. These factors meant we as humans began putting out CO2 like nobody'sThe Earth has gotten hotterNASA once again has a relevant graph: . https://climate.nasa.gov...These two are correlatedHere, our good friend NOAA helps out, with their interactive climate dashboard(you'll have to scroll down past a few articles): . https://www.climate.gov...;And no, the NOAA isn't fake: . https://www.snopes.com...;Your ad hominems also reminded me of this: . https://imgur.com...;In
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

The conditions of the debate are very confusing. It sounds like it was written by a control freak who can't tolerate freedom of speech and democratic processes. Never-the-less I am will to take on somebody who doesn't understand basic science. Yep!, You heard me right. Any person who believes in climate change doesn't understand basic science and politics for that matter. Introducing Maurice Strong - The dirt bag climate change instigator. http://quadrant.org.au... https://steemit.com...
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

1. I just posted some information which gave you an opportunity to react to, rather than just letting you waffle on about subjects that I am not interested in or concerned about. Regardless, if you didn't post an argument in the first round that is your fault and not mine. You just wasted a valuable round, that's all. 2. My opponent keeps using Wikipedia references and seems to think that these are highly reputable and contain infallible information which can't be disputed or challenged. This is nonsense and a contradiction of his own authority fallacy theory. The Wikipedia website is just a collection of articles which could have been written by any random person. Its the editing that is the problem. I have made many edits in Wikipedia and after about 7 days my edits disappear and the original text comes back again. Thus, the site is managed by a bunch of conservative bureaucrats that hate new ideas or changes to old theories. Thus, if you are looking for exciting new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, then, you won't find any in Wikipedia. 3. People who are innocent don't run and hide in far off distant countries like China where they will be protected by the corrupted communist system. 4. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments. I have shown that my opponent has supplied false and misleading information. I have shown that the concept of global warming is a fallacy. I have shown that Maurice Strong was a criminal. I have shown that the oceans are not rising. I have shown that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. I have shown how the IPCC deceives the public. Vote 1 Akhey ! !! !! ! !
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

1. MauriceYou still haven't proved that he's a criminal, and all I have is that he slapped his name on a few things. Not the first instigator, not by a long shot. And even if he was a criminal, it doesn't disprove the science. Isaac Newton had people killed(he was in charge of killing counterfeiters), should we discredit all of his findings? This is nothing but an ad hominem.2. Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely childish, is basically appeal to the stone. Also, see: . https://skepticalscience.com...;3. Sea levels. This is appeal to authority to the max, and you didn't even back up the authority that you gave him. And you still have clearly not even clicked on my sources. (#4 doesn't exist for some reason)5. Appeal to authority. Jesus christ, I shouldn't have to link this to explain, but here you go: . https://en.wikipedia.org...;Nota bene: when your argument begins with "Drrrrr? ?? ?" and ends with "lol," you should probably rethink it. Aaaand then it's topped off with a juicy false equivalency. NOAA and IPCC are groups, do have peer review, and use the scientific process. Individuals are not subject to this. CONCLUSIONI strongly urge a vote for affirmative(pro), as my opponent has not provided any real evidence, nor countered my own points, his arguments devolving into personal attacks, proof by assertion, and childish rhetoric.
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

1. Maurice Strong - In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world's first "state of the environment" report. The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change. Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led Climate Council. This is not confusing, this is fact. 2. Mauna Loa. My opponent is using information from a volcano site as being average for global CO2 levels. Hmmmmmmm????????? Does anybody with half a brain see something wrong here???????? Gee Con, that must be why the graph suddenly shot up all of a sudden because they started using a volcano site as their average. lol Good work, Swede named Knut Angstrom. lol Nut alright!!!! lol 3. Sea levels rising? If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel M"rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M"rner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 5. Authority fallacy? Drrrrr???? Never heard of that one before. Gee, does that mean that I should disbelieve all the IPCC and NOAA garbage? lol
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

1. This is extremely confusing. You start off by saying that Maurice Strong is a criminal. He's not. Then you go on to rant about how climate change is an immoral commie agenda. I assume this is who you re talking about when you say he "created" climate change. He didn't. The greenhouse effect was discovered by a French physicist named Joseph Fourier in 1824. the first correlation beteen CO2 and temperature was discovered in 1900, by a Swede named Knut Angstrom. Mauna Loa began working in 1958. The first concern about climate change came in 1965, when the President was warned about climate change by a council of scientists. So tell me, how did Maurice start ALL of climate change?2. This is a blog, and the IPCC is much more credible source.3. (a) That's not how climate or averages work. They average thousands of sites across the globe, and they all indicate warming. (b) Oceans are indeed rising. YOu have no clue how continental drift works either, do you? COntinental drift doesn't happen at that rate, "dummy". Here's a source: . https://www.climate.gov...4. It is not trivial, but it is appeal to authority fallacy.5. Please read the sources I've provided. They'll help. Hockey stick was not broken, and many replications have shown the same result. . https://www.skepticalscience.com...there it is My opponent has repeatedly used incorrect information, fallacious reasoning, faulty logic, ad hominems, and has his whole argument structured around proof by repetition.