BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Vitro Fertilization

Screening embryos for genetic issues does solve the down syndrome and other genetics diseases, but they also raise many ethical issues as did the discard of the extra embryos. Basically, here we have the human attempting to play god, switching up the fate of the embryo or fetus to their own desire, as opposed to letting nature run its course as is intended and natural. At what point in this advancement of IVF do we realize we have gone too far? Also, during that screening and the culturing of the embryos, once the preferred ones have been chosen, what then? Where do the extra embryos of that process go? Are they discarded, destroyed, used as test subject? Do they too have all of their potential stolen away by greedy scientists seeking to control the forces of nature? There are several problems surrounding this particular step. Culturing of these embryos is a death sentence from the start. In the article from advancedfertility.com, it is stated that " if the culture environment is suboptimal, delayed embryo development and even embryonic arrest will occur in some cases". Which describes a flaw in the system, it is not as all efficient as you may suppose. The article confirms with "Therefore, if the culture system and laboratory quality control are inconsistent - good results will not be obtained with extended culture to day 5."
In Vitro Fertilization

As I had mentioned in the last argument, IVF has the capabilities of detecting and preventing birth defects and other diseases. By performing the genetic screening of embryos, extra chromosomes can be removed from unhealthy eggs in order to prevent birth defects including down syndrome. An article from www.advancedfertility.com explains that the genetic screening of embryos allows for chromosomal abnormalities to be fixed to the normal amount of 23 pairs of chromosomes. The microscopic observations made after the eggs are fertilized help advance IVF technology and medicine. Also, IVF can be used to assist couples in which the males have low sperm count, allowing for a procedure called intracytoplasmic sperm injection. As you had also mentioned about ethical issues involving IVF, many believe that the embryo is not living and rather at birth it is considered alive. This shows that innocent humans are not being killed. Development has not even begun when the unhealthy or extra embryos are chosen to be frozen or used for research because they have not yet been inserted into the woman's uterus. To counteract the argument that IVF does not work often, statistics from www.m.webmd.com states that women under the age of 35 that undergoes and has a child due to IVF is 40%. This number drops with age meaning that IVF is more successful the younger the age of the recipient. The percentage of IVF procedures that resulted in live birth is over 22% with over 200,000 births due to IVF since 1981 when the technology was brand new. As more research is put into IVF the procedure can only improve and make it more cost efficient. Without the genetic screening of embryos, more unhealthy embryos may be implanted which stems into more problems. Also the screening and use for research is a vital part of improving the procedure and advancing the technology for IVF and medicine itself.
In Vitro Fertilization

These technological advancements, while slightly improving the system, also raise many ethical issues. Like you have said in your argument, those extra embryos can be destroyed, or worse, used for research purposed for more IVF procedures. What are they doing to these embryos, in relation to their research? in an article on ispub.com, it is said that " if human life initiates at fertilization then ivf is experimentation upon a human being and should follow the norms of that type of research" This is wrong in many ways, and human beings should not be used as simple test subjects to be killed in laboratories. Also, if we were to continue this principle, then fetuses and or embryos discarded and destroyed would be seen as human as well. "Report suggests that out of 150 attempts to implant human embryos only 4 actually were successful and only 1 was carried to term. Knowingly and willingly wasting human beings is unethical" This just goes to show that despite the news of technological advancement and accuracy in the IVF procedures, many lives are still lost. 1 out of 150 embryos in the IVF procedure gets the chance to mature as a normal human being would, because of the IVf procedure. Whether or not you view the zygote as a human life with potential or a zygote with potential of human life, the fact remains that it has potential. And when a procedure like this is performed, that potential is stripped away.
In Vitro Fertilization

During an In Vitro Fertilization procedure the women is given FSH in order to release an egg for fertilization from the ovarian follicles in the ovaries. An article from www.pbs.org on IVF procedures explains that IVF has the ability to prevent birth defects unlike in natural birth. During the IVF procedure after the eggs are surgically removed and placed in the petri dish to fertilize, each embryo is observed microscopically in order to make sure that each embryo is healthy. Any unhealthy embryos that have the potential to be harmful or have diseases/ defects are either destroyed or can also be used for research to further advance IVF technology. By studying fertilization and early embryonic development outside of the womb, scientists can increase probability that IVF works and ease the process as the technology constantly advances. Information that it gained can help to advance medicine in general and also help with prenatal care. Overall the process of IVF can be used to find any birth defects that may occur before it actually happens and also helps to find out why these defects occur in the first place. As the technology advances, IVF procedure should become more available to infertile couples and cost less money. The technology will also help prevent harm to either the child/children or the mother after the procedure. Since 2 to 3 and sometimes 4 embryos are available, the woman can decide what to do with leftover embryos or decide to have multiple birth, knowing that it will be slightly more difficult.
In Vitro Fertilization

IVF can be quite problematic for couples who have trouble conceiving naturally. In an article on nhs.uk about IVF, it was stated that there is an increased chance of having twins or triplets due to the IVF process. Although to some this doesn't sound too bad, this does have consequences. There is a higher chance of miscarriage and anemia, and will often have to have a C-section as opposed to natural birth. Up to 25% of multiple baby pregnancies cause high blood pressure. Ovarian Hyper-stimulation syndrome is another side effect of IVF, which causes too many eggs to develop in the ovaries due to sensitivity to the drugs. This can be very painful for the woman going through it.
In Vitro Fertilization

In Vitro Fertilization allows couples who couldn't normally have children to actually have the chance to. This is due to infertility in either the man or woman or in some cases both. Studies show that one in six couples are affected by infertility. In vitro fertilization also has the ability to consistently advance technology and make the procedure work a higher percentage of the time than it already does. This allows the participants of the Ivf procedure to decide what they want to do with the leftover embryos. The choices include saving them for a later time, donating to another person in need, or even choice to donate them to science which will help advance ivf technology. Another benefit of ivf is the use of ivf for animals as well. By using In Vitro Fertilization in animals, there is the potential to rescue the gene pool of endangered animals and animals that cannot reproduce, or at least don't reproduce at a quick enough pace to maintain the species. This allows for the rapid expansion of animal population and can be used for genetic manipulation.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour

Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "one would expect America"to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour." 2Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.) 3States With Minimum Wages Higher Than the FederalTwenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation"s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project. 4About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are "near-minimum-wage" workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS"s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of "near-minimum" U.S. workers " those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education. 5The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. Our analysis also found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as "tip credits" bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.)
Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour

Rebuttal 1: Minimum wage benefits I have already shown why a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage actually hurts private business owners. Not only this, but it also harms consumers due to hikes in prices for goods. In fact, we need to see that on average, the minimum wage being raised an be a harm unless certain precautions are taken. For example, we can allow states to make the decisions necessary as stated in my counter plan. What is important is the fact that while some states have a lot to benefit from raising the minimum wage, raising it to fifteen dollars an hour can put too much of a strain on private business owners and consumers. Rebuttal 2: Evidence My opponent cites evidence about the minimum wage currently and a raise to 10 dollars and ten cents an hour, yet this does not answer he resolution, which specifies the minimum wage being raised to fifteen dollars an hour. What needs to be shown is the fact that my opponent’s burden of proof is not met because he has yet to show the fact that the minimum wage has net benefits when raised on the federal level to fifteen dollars an hour. This means that I win. Rebuttal 3: Plagiarism My opponent’s arguments are filled with plagiarism, which detracts from any point he intends to make. Not only this, but my opponent has broken an important rule of debate, which should result in points being docked for conduct. Remember, this may not be an entirely formal debate, but we still need to have some rules in place to keep a fair debate. Rebuttal 4: Living wage My opponent has brought up an entirely new evidence which points toward a living wage, stating that many people make below the poverty line. But there are many poverty lines, and since this is not specified we can only assume that this is entirely made up. The government does not have the job to make sure everybody works and makes enough to feed a family, unfortunately that is not how capitalism works. A better solution to people not having enough money would be to invest in education and have a lower social safety net to incentivize people to work more and not use government funds to pay for their life.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour

According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased
Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour

Observation: Plagiarism https://www.dol.gov... My opponent has copied all of his points from the preceding website. Regardless, I will respond to them. Rebuttal 1: Teenagers The entire argument does not matter since I did not make this claim. What does matter, though, is the number attached to it showing the minimum wage that was measured. “… In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.” What we are debating is a fifteen-dollar minimum wage per hour, so this entire argument is not under the resolution, and is considered void given no context on why this matters. Rebuttal 2: 600 economists I will concede that this happened, in support of the minimum wage increasing to $10.10 an hour of course. However, we are debating the minimum wage being higher, which will lose jobs in the long run. Remember, we are not debating simply a minimum wage increase, but one to fifteen dollars an hour, and this should be factored into today’s debate. http://www.epi.org... Rebuttal 3: Support from small businesses The opinions of small businesses do not matter since I already given you an unrefuted example of how a minimum wage increase harms consumers. Not only this, but these are simply opinions and are not factored in to this debate. Rebuttal 4: Tipped minimum wage This entire argument is non-sequitur as it is not discussed in this debate. Rebuttal 5: Job losses I have already explained that job losses do not occur if the state were in charge of raising the minimum wage and I have used a Brookings Institution article to show why states are the best actors. Myth 5 and 6 I have not discussed this in this debate up till now. Rebuttal 6: Employee turnover Alright, maybe under certain circumstances this may happen, but my opponent has not shown that the savings from employee turnover outweigh the price of paying more toward employees, which will increase the price of products. Rebuttal 7: Not bad for economy The article claims that since this has not happened before, the GDP will remain the same. Aright, but have we ever doubled the federal minimum wage within one year? If so, what was the effect of that? Rebuttal 8: Minimum wages do not mean job losses My opponent does not cite sources to prove this. Also, remember these are independent studies, not studies done on the national level. I have already shown you that a minimum wage hike will have different results in different states, so independent results are not important if done on the state level. Since this is not cited, I can only assume as much.
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

Interesting you would choose a 200 year old opinion to argue a modern problem. What you've stated so far is my proposition is unconstitutional where I argue that maybe it's time for a change to that constitution. TJ argues in your quote that the government shall not provide for the general welfare but shall lay tax to pay debts and provide for welfare of the Union. I take it your point is you don't want government controlling healthcare. You're probably right and my opinion is a universal healthcare system should be patient-centered. If you argue against gun control how do you propose to combat the proliferation of mass shootings and other violence that plague us?
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

That would be Unconstitutional, Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to George Washington with regards to the First Bank of the United States:"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxesfor that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." Source:http://avalon.law.yale.edu...As for the Second Ammendment- owning a gun is a right, not a privelage, because if it were a privelage to be taken at the whim of government, the Second Ammendment would be devoid of any purpose. The bill of rights should not, as George Carlin said they were, be a bill of 'temporary privelages.'
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

I'm suggesting their job includes providing healthcare. I think the patients control healthcare in a proper solution. As far as how it's paid for, that hasn't been resolved. Seems the easiest and most likely solution would be to fix Obamacare. Some suggest the government provide coverage but I don't see anything like that ever passing Congress. My original point was that healthcare is a right. Care should not be provided based on ability to pay. All citizens should have coverage. As for the second amendment I still contend gun ownership is not a right but a privilege. Sure you can own a gun if you're fit, take legal responsibility and keep it safe. No one has been able to explain to me the need for assault weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens.
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

The Second Ammendment is there to enable us to revolt if need be, as well as to defend our person and property, and yes- this is still necessary because if we ever do need to revolt because the government became tyrannical, trying to have a political campaign or ammend the Constitution isn't going to do anything. We elect politicians to do their jobs, n[ot control our healthcare. I would like you to try and point to the part of the Constitution which gives congress the power to control our healthcare.
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

My understanding of the second amendment is it was meant for the citizens to be able to protect them, militarily if need be, from oppression, from their own government or outside influence (England). Arm the citizens to rise up if necessary. Do we feel this is still necessary? Are there not mechanisms to reshape our government without killing people? We elect a government to provide for the common good. They provide for our defense, social security, a framework of laws and economy. Healthcare is for the common good.
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

I don't agree that gun ownership is a right, granted by the government or inherent. It is a privilege with responsibilities like driving a car. Those who are unfit don't have a license, we are expected to carry insurance and are responsible not to drive drunk or pay for any accidents we cause. I am suggesting only the fit be allowed to own a weapon and they must keep that weapon secure so it's not used in a crime. Where do you stand on assault weapons? I'm not suggesting the government has the right to control healthcare. Perhaps the answer is let the market provide healthcare like Obamacare. I believe we as citizens have the right to expect to be cared for when we need it. Every citizen should be covered, guaranteed. I don't know how that happens.
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

If you will notice, the Second Ammendment sdoesn't give us the right to bear arms- it states that the government cannot violate the right to bear arms. I.e. the right to bear arms is inhereit to he citizenry- it already exists, they already have that right in of themselves, and because the government didn't grant them that right, the government cannot take it away. As far as healthcare is concerned- having the government control your healthcare is not a right- if you want that, go join the military and have fun waiting in line for months at the VA, and possibly dying before you ever see a doctor. f that souds like a good deal to you, by all means, go join the marines.
Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

Gun ownership is not a right. Citizens should be allowed to have guns for hunting, sports and if they feel they really need it, personal protection. But criminals and the mentally challenged should not have guns. We need a better and universal background check system. Owners should be licensed and guns should be registered. Gun owners should be responsible for crimes committed with their weapons. Individual citizens do not need assault weapons and they should be banned for public sale. I would even go as far as making assault weapons illegal as in can be confiscated. As far as healthcare, if you are a US citizen you should be covered for healthcare. How this is best achieved is an open question. My position is a single payer system but I can see where this may be difficult to achieve in America. Obamacare was a good start but needs fixed.
Junk Food

Lady's and gentelman the motion for todays debate is junk food! I would like to tell you that if you eat junk food really oftenly you will become a beast,but if you have a balanced diet and you eat chips e.t.c once a week you are welcome to have it. If you are one of the people who are really good at physical education you can have a choice of salads and healthy stuff or unhealthy stuff with some calories. Most kids either adults would chose chips not salads to eat. Thank you