BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

I found three articles about the benefits of Genetic Screening of embryos. An article on http://www.pennmedicine.org... explained that in using Preimplantation genetic dianogsis (PGD) doctors can can help determine if the embryos produced during IVF have any type of genetic or chromosomal disorders. This procedure can help the couples make a more knowledgeable decision regarding what they choose to do next with IVF. PGD is recommended to those who have one or both partners has a history of heritable genetic disorders, one or both partners is a carrier of a chromosomal abnormality, the mother is of advanced maternal age, or if the mother has a history of recurrent miscarriages. Another article I read on http://www.advancedfertility.com... brought up an interesting fact about the human eggs, it stated that most human eggs are often abnormal when it comes to their chromosomes. The correlation between the number of eggs with chromosomal abnormalities and increasing female age is positive. This is why it is important that women undergo PGD because in testing the chromosomes of their embryos, the ones with abnormal chromosomes can be discarded. The last article I found on http://rba-online.com... talked about what PGD has done for women in IVF and how accurate it is. The implementation of PGD has lowered the rate of miscarriages, improved the pregnancy and life birth rates, and increased the IVF success rates all together. Clinical misdiagnosis of the embryos is believed to occur in a small amount of 5-10% of embryos. Genetic conditions that result from abnormalities in embryos can interfere with embryo implantation, result in pregnancy loss, or even result in the birth of a child with physical or cognitive abnormalities. To prevent this, PGD can identify embryos that have genetic abnormalities and improve the chances of pregnancy happening as well as increase the chances that those pregnancies are ones that will have a healthy and unaffected baby.
IVF Debate

In reading Meg Lundstrom's informative guide about IVF on the WebMD"s Archive at http://www.webmd.com... she talked about basic procedures and processes that the couples undergo during IVF to help eliminate these problems you have mentioned that might arise. She stated that, at the start of the IVF process, a doctor will conduct an interview between the couple in order to determine what treatment will work best for them specifically through discussing medical and fertility history of both people. A doctor may also perform a hysteroscopy. This procedure may be done in order to determine the cause of severe cramping or abnormal bleeding, if the uterus" shape, size, or scar tissue is the cause of infertility, check potential blockage of the fallopian tubes, find the cause of repeated miscarriages, a misplaced intrauterine device, fibroid, or maybe even endometrial cancer. Pap Smears are also used to detect cervical cancer, other problems with the cervix, or active sexually transmitted diseases that could be factors in a female"s infertility. There are also different procedures to check the health of the woman"s reproductive organs including Hysterosalpingogram, Transvaginal ultrasound, Hysteroscopy, and Laparoscopy. Next, the female will undergo an ultrasound as well as blood test to be able to detect the state of her eggs and how many she has. The female will also meet with a financial counselor to ensure that any economical issues are resolved and worked out and then also be appointed to a psychologist to help cope with stress that might occur later in the process. Next, the female will undergo a series of injections to stimulate the growth of her eggs with medications like GonalF and Repronex, and also an injection of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) to keep her from ovulating too early. Then around the 12th day, the female will be injected with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to start the ovulation. To monitor her progress and health the female will be visiting a clinic about 5 times to get her blood tested and ultrasound tests conducted during the two weeks. Another process specifically used in males with low sperm count as mentioned before is ICSI, this will ensure that once the doctor has extracted the eggs from the ovaries they can directly inject the sperm into an egg. For women that are over the age of 40 or have a history of failed attempts with IVF the doctor might conduct a process called hatching on the embryo where he/she punctures it"s outer shell before transferring it into the uterus so that it can implant itself more easily and sufficiently. If there is a concern regarding genetic diseases from family history then before inserting the embryos, the doctor might decide to wait until day 5 so that a lab can perform a biopsy to select the best and healthiest embryo. Meg stated that with all these test, not every women will undergo every single one. Their doctor will guide her to where they best see fit, but she did mention that once these procedures are done 85% of couples know why they cannot get pregnant and how to increase their chances.
IVF Debate

While IVF does give couples that have trouble conceiving naturally the opportunity to have children, the problems that arise from IVF completely outweigh the benefits. The first problem that arises with IVF is the cost. One cycle/round costs anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000, and there is no "refund" if it is unsuccessful (http://invitrofertilization.weebly.com...). The cost, most of the time, is what makes or breaks if a couple can undergo the procedure or not. Another problem that arises is that IVF does not have a 100% success rate; it is reported from the American Pregnancy Association that for a woman under the age of 35, the success rate is around 30-35% (and that success rate decreases as the age of the mother increases) (http://www.mamashealth.com...). For a couple to invest so much money, time, and emotion into this process and then have such a low success rate is heartbreaking. And again, if something goes wrong with the process and it is unsuccessful, the couple is unable to get their $10,000-$20,000 back (and their money becomes wasted). Along with the financial problem, the question arises "can you really put a price on a child?" (http://invitrofertilization.weebly.com...). IVF forces couples to place monetary values on embryos/children, which raises many ethical issues and even some guilt as a parent. A final problem that arises when dealing with IVF is the health of the mother. Many times, the process of IVF increases the risk of the mother having severe abdominal pain, nausea, weight gain, and other risks that come from over-stimulating the ovaries (http://www.mamashealth.com...). These problems that come out of IVF greatly outweigh the benefits, and should be taken into consideration.
IVF Debate

After reading author La Jolla IVF"s (specifically David B. Smotrich, M.D.) article called "Why Choose IVF?" at http://www.lajollaivf.com... I found these significant benefits and reasoning for In Vitro Fertilization. The biggest and most obvious benefit of In Vitro Fertilization is that it makes it possible for an individual or couple to have a baby. IVF gives anyone regardless of their gender or relationship status the ability to conceive a child. This process helps many people that have infertility issues. For example, women who have missing, blocked, or ruptured fallopian tubes are able to have their egg fertilized outside of the female body and then inserted inside the uterus, which helps to make implantation more likely through IVF. Men with infertility issues also benefit from IVF. For example, in many cases, a procedure with IVF called intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is used to help men with low sperm count, those who can"t ejaculate sperm, irreversible vasectomies, and even testicular cancer survivors. IVF with the combination of ICSI can increase the chances of fertilization. This is why a lot of couples use IVF to conceive at times that are suitable to them. Also, the amount of options IVF gives parents with having children is another reason why people chose to use this process. These options include: conserving the extra eggs or sperm so that they can use it for future use, helping women that have experienced menopause so that they can still undergo a pregnancy since their uterus has the ability to carry a fetus, give the choice of having egg donors used to help the women who suffer from low ovarian reserve or just poor quality eggs, and lastly the parents have the option of someone else undergoing the pregnancy for them if the mother is not suitable to carry a full 9-month pregnancy. La Jolla also included some surprising statistics having to do with the success rate of pregnancy and live births when using IVF. With IVF, the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) found that 47.7% of women under the age of 35, 38.8% of women from the ages 35-37, and 29.9% of women from ages 38-40 all became successfully pregnant with the help of In Vitro Fertilization.
University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical

I will stand by my position by saying that yes, a degree in auto mechanics at university would be more theoretical than practical, hands on experience. I think that if one wants to gain practical employable skills, one should go to college rather than university, because in my opinion, university aren't for people who are interested in a trade, but for those interested in the social sciences or the humanities. I should have been more specific. Depending on the discipline in which one is interested in gaining a degree, university is an invaluable resource. (Ie: Law, Medicine, Business, etc) It depends upon the field, as to whether one should attend college or university. What I mean by this is that while it gives the student short term satisfaction, it doesn't provide long term satisfaction. Being older (50+) allows one to fully grasp and appreciate the knowledge that is being professed, while when one is a teenager, one isn't able to fully appreciate the knowledge being professed due to other seemingly more important priorities. (IE: Parties, members of the opposite sex, etc) In closing, the difference between these types of institutions are that of content. While I would agree that a college institution is at the same level of a university institution in engineering for instance, but as I said, it all depends upon the discipline that one wants to obtain to determine which institution is better suited.
University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical

I will attempt to refute the resolution that compared to college, universities aren't useful. ----------- Refutations ----------- ". .. college teaches you how to screw in a light bulb, while university teaches you the history of one. " [This analogy is very broad and for the most part incorrect. What you learn at a college or university depends not on that institution but what any specific person is studying at that institution. For instance, if I wanted to get a degree in auto mechanics that was offered at a university would you argue that this degree would teach me nothing about repairing cars and would only teach me about the history of automobiles? ] ~~~ "University isn't practical, its theoretical. It doesn't set you up with a career, it sets you up with a hobby. I think the ideal university student is that of a person 50+ because one can develop a new interest or fascination that they can than gain self-satisfaction, where in earlier life, they really couldn't. " [Harvard University is one of, if not the, best law school in the United States. Getting a degree in law from here virtually guarantees that you will be sought after for employment by numerous law firms. Also, the idea that a younger person can not gain self satisfaction through a university is absurd. ] ~~~ "With early life, a nineteen year old university student is worried about everything but gaining self- satisfaction. They are worried about passing the upcoming test, remembering the study group on Tuesday and buying beer on Friday. " [I ask my opponent to explain his view that passing a test would not make a person satisfied with themselves. Studying is merely a means used to gain that satisfaction. I also ask my opponent to explain his view that buying beer for a party is a worrisome activity. ] ~~~ My Contention: University is a title used to describe an institute of higher education and is synonymous with the words College, Institute (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Academy (United States Military Academy), Union (Cooper Union), Conservatory (New England Conservatory), and School (Juilliard School). All of the above institutions are considered colleges and simply because a place has a different title does not mean it offers a dissimilar educational experience. As an example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a great place to get a degree in engineering, but so is the University of Michigan [1]. A title only changes how one refers to a thing in this instance, not the style of teaching. Sources: [1] . http://www.graduateshotline.com...
University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical

To begin with an analogy, college teaches you how to screw in a light bulb, while university teaches you the history of one. The problems with university are endless, but I have 7,000 characters remaining so I must be brief. University isn't practical, its theoretical. It doesn't set you up with a career, it sets you up with a hobby. I think the ideal university student is that of a person 50+ because one can develop a new interest or fascination that they can than gain self-satisfaction, where in earlier life, they really couldn't. With early life, a nineteen year old university student is worried about everything but gaining self- satisfaction. They are worried about passing the upcoming test, remembering the study group on Tuesday and buying beer on Friday. To conclude, the institution of university is for a person whom lives a life of leisure, that of a person 50+, and college is for a person whom wants to develop the practical skills for employment.
University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical

++++++++ Refutations ++++++++ "We live in a very 'status' society where a university degree is considered 'top of the line' and a college diploma is considered 'a step down. '" [Not according to my first contention which states that colleges and universities are only different in name. My opponent has dome nothing to address this point and it therefore stands. A college degree is a college degree and the prestige is not garnered from going to a university. The prestige is garnered from going to an institute of higher education that has a well known name. This could be one with the title university or any other synonymous title. ] ~~~ "Furthermore, she asserts that university bound students don't necessarily even need to go to university because without a four year degree they would still make the same amount of money and be as successful because they have already developed a strong work ethic and other related traits. " [I watched the video provided in your link and it does not address going to a university. It argues that you do necessarily need a college education to do well. This goes against your original arguments and is in fact evidence that supports my position. This debate is not whether a college education is useful, it is about whether or not colleges are more useful than universities. ] ~~~ In conclusion my opponent has neglected to defend himself against my rebuttals and even contradicted himself on at least two occasions. I stick to my original contention that a university is different than a college in name only and this point has not been refuted.
University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical

We live in a very 'status' society where a university degree is considered 'top of the line' and a college diploma is considered 'a step down.' It has been noted that a four year university graduate make $250,000 or more than their college counterparts. However, this has been disproved by April Norhanian, a former college recruiter. She wrote a book called "College Is for Suckers –The FIRST College Guide You Should Read." She states how despite ones credentials, it doesn't necessarily guarantee oneself a career or even a job. Furthermore, she asserts that university bound students don't necessarily even need to go to university because without a four year degree they would still make the same amount of money and be as successful because they have already developed a strong work ethic and other related traits. She states that if a student is in the bottom forty percent of his or her high school class, they will have a very difficult time in graduating university even if they are given eight and half years. To conclude, does one really need to spend $30,000 for a four year BA degree. My answer is no. http://collegeisforsuckers.com...
Death Penalty

Well done, TinaK7, big claps to you on financial part, i did a little research and it does cost a little more, but that little more isn't it worth it? I got your point, there is no point of me arguing further, because to whatever i say, you will still try to convince me that it should be banned, and now i think about it, and did a little research on http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... and it opened my eyes, Well done job you did here, and i have to give it to you. It was nice debating with you, hopefully we will debate on something again, and very soon. Good luck.
Death Penalty

Simply* Therefore,* I understand your point of view but most people do not realize that financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste? Another benefit to keep criminals in prisons is because criminals get beat up and raped in prison and it teaches them a lesson since the family and friends of the victim cannot get their hands on the criminals, criminals inmates will teach them a lesson and they will have to live with beatens and getting raped for the rest of their lives.
Death Penalty

TinaK7 I do disagree with you on the point of where you said that it "kills their self-confidence" because there is no confidence in the prison. Tell me this, people stay in prison their whole life (Life-sentenced), and WE the tax payers pay the government to hold those murderers and rapists. That's a free way of living for them, sure they stay under the lock down, but they all receiving roof under their heads and free food for which regular people like me and you pay for it. For example, you work and you pay taxes to the government, where do you think those taxes go? of course to prisons, and to maintain the prison. You think that's fair to 313 million people in United States? Of course not, we have to keep ourselves dressed and fed, instead of people in prison. That's why the Death Penalty is the cheapest and easiest way to get rid of the criminals who does no good to the society for the rest of their life.
Death Penalty

Dear Jippik I am against the Death Penalty. I think those who killed/murdered someone and/or many others) should not be penalized by death because people cannot fight violence with violence...because this will simple not resolve anything. Also we should not be on the same level as criminals (cannot be violent). Therefore they (criminals) should suffer while they are in prison and not be allowed to escape (die by not suffering and not having to think about what they have done). Also criminals should be in prison because subconsciously it will slowly kill their self-confidence.
There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

Hello there, I thank ReformedArsenal for his opening statments.In a nutshell, my opponent argues the following:Evolution defines "Good" as "Contributing to Reproductive Fitness" and "Bad" as "Detracting from Reproductive Fitness." Homsexuality detracts from Reproductive Fitness, so therefore homosexuality is "bad" in the eyes of Evolutionary Science.Since there is a compelling argument against homosexuality (from an Evolutionary Science perspective which is markedly secular), the resolution is false and Con takes the debate.At first, one may think this to be a compelling argument. However, when we look deeper, we see numerous flaws.1) Homosexual behaviour is displayed in animals.Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 0312192398http://en.wikipedia.org...In February of 2004, the NY Times reported a male pair of chinstrap penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York City had successfully hatched and fostered a female chick from a fertile egg they had been given to incubate.http://www.nytimes.com...;We see that Evolution has not only allowed homosexuality in humans, but in other species as well.Evolution never defines what is good and what is evil. It just shows us how we got here.2) Is sex for procreation?My opponent also argues that it is good if it benefits the human species. However, we see sterile couples getting married and having sex...so does that mean that it is wrong for them to do so?I understand that this debate is not about marriage, but sterile couples do have sex...should that be wrong?Furthermore, I wish to point out that meiosis (formation of sex-sells [eggs and sperm]) happens throught the life of a male, but not the life of a female. So theoretically, it is probable that a 90 year old man could have a child if it is with a woman who is younger. Therefore, I wish to ask my opponent if senior citizens should not be together and the males go with younger women. Back to you, ReformedArsenal. I eagerly await your reply.
There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

Hello, ReformedArsenal. Thank you so much for accepting this debate. I agree to your additional stipulations.May I remind you the structure of the debate.STRUCTURERound 1 pro will give terms and con will present his first argumentRound 2 First rebuttalsRound 3 Second rebuttalsRound 4 Third rebuttalsRound 5 Summary and closing arguments. No new arguments allowed.You have not posted a single argument thus breaking the structure of the debate. Where is your argument?
There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

I look forward to debating this topic with you.I would like to add the following stipulations:If either Pro or Con does not post an argument, the debate is an automatic loss and will result in a 7 point vote against the debater who did not post.There will be no argumnts carried into the comments. Arguments that are made in the comments should be dismissed unless also posted in the argument itself.All yours MA.
There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

The resolution is clear. My opponent is going to bring forth SECULAR arguments against homosexuality and I will refute them. STRUCTURE Round 1 pro will give terms and con will present his first argument Round 2 First rebuttals Round 3 Second rebuttals Round 4 Third rebuttals Round 5 Summary and closing arguments. No new arguments allowed. Rules Must bring forth SECULAR arguments May NOT declare victory or ask for votes until last round THIS DEBATE IS NOT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE! (Emphasis) Good luck and I now turn it over to con for his first arguments.