BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politicial Roleplay (Sarah Palin)

For this debate my opponent and I will be role playing as two politicians. I am Sarah Palin and he is I assume...Barack Obama. The setting is the presidential debates 2012. Voters please judge on who is the best actor. "Hello fello Americans! How are we all doing today? Okeey now I would like to start this speech with a shoutout to all Mamma grizzly women across these grand 50 states. Get up and cheer mamma grizzlys! Now on a more relevant note...Mr. Obama is at it again, he's killing our children and digging a deeper hole for our future. It's time to tell Mr. Obama to stop his radical muslim PLOT, and its time to elect a REAL leader to the presidency! We all know Barack HUSSAIN Obama is a muslim atheist homosexual, but what has he done this time? **Looks at notes written on hand** He is PROPOSING a plan to STOP natural gas drilling in Up State NY . Is Mr Obama crazy? There is so much CLEAN natrual gas up there it's like mother nature is farting! Drinking water is completely safe, we have seen fantastic results from the other gas drilling operations across the country! Now I turn the microphone to Mister Obama.
IVF Debate

Hence, the overarching issue with IVF treatment besides the side effects, extreme risks, evolution of new technology with unknown results is that when multiple eggs are extracted and froze for the couple to use later, who owns the rights to the embryos. "It has become the standard solution to leave the decision about stored gametes to the gamete providers about embryos to the persons for whose reproduction they are created"(Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.1993. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 1994.). However, IVF treatment leaves several couples, majority divorced, in a argument in court over who has the rights over eggs, to destroy or keep. In a now common case, Lorraine Hadley is taking legal action to prevent her husband from destroying eggs frozen during IVF treatment. Hadley, who wants another child, and due to a diagnosed condition may not conceive naturally and IVF is her only chance of having another child, decided on using the remaining frozen eggs. Therefore it would be using the sperm of her divorced husband, using part of his traits. Her husband feels that he does not want to have to take responsibility for the child since genetically it is his. "I remember we had to sign several forms but I do not feel they were particularly well explained to us. I don't think the clinic made the legal ramifications adequately clear," said Hadley. IVF treatment clinics are failing to communicate with their patients the rights of the embryos stored, making IVF treatment more complicated with blurred lines over legal responsibilities (Rebecca English). IVF treatment fails to regulate embryo rights and regulations prior to the procedure (Julie Shooter). All in all, IVF treatment may give the opportunity for a couple who are unable to conceive have the ability to possibly have a child, but the lack of research on long term effects technology can have on society regarding designer babies and the harsh side effects from artificially playing God in reproduction, and the legal and ethical issues surrounding how the eggs are froze, discarded, or donated outweighs the glory of having a child. Until major issues are resolved making the procedure more understood, safer, and less complex, then IVF should not be recommended in use for reproduction.
IVF Debate

That may be true, however, many patients resort to these treatments for the very reason of trying to have multiple births. A patient, Leslie Glass says she did want twins when she turned to IVF (WedMD, Miranda Hitti). And although it can cause complications due to multiple births, it can prevent long term complications for the baby with the screening mentioned before that looks for birth defects. More American women have had medical help to have their babies than ever. Their report showed that doctors at these clinics performed 165,172 procedures, including IVF, with 61,740 babies born as a result of those efforts in 2012. That's about 2,000 more babies born using treatments from IVF clinics than in 2011. That also makes 2012 the year with the highest percentage of babies born through IVF than ever reported previously, according to the society (CNN News, 2014) IVF treatments account for about 1.5% of all babies born in the United States in 2012. IVF treatments are becoming more and more popular. And with the rising success rates and advances in technology, more births are possible because of this treatment.
IVF Debate

However, transferring 2-3 embryos can cause problems because in several cases multiple births due to conceiving of all 3 embryos at the same time. About 1 in 6 pregnancies result in a multiple birth which is abnormally high because on average in a natural pregnancy there is a 1 in 80 chance of conceiving twins. If two separate embryos are planted in the womb and both embryos conceive, then the fetuses will be non-identical twins. In woman under 35 in 2013, almost 15% that used IVF resulted in multiple births(One at a Time.2016.). In Europe, doctors are prohibited from implanting more than 1 embryo at a time, and in the United States the FDA allows woman over 40 can implant up to 5 at a single time, under 35 no more than 1, and then under 28 no more than two at the most. Although, in the U.S. has been recommended to follow guideline in Europe since the single implant has an equally high conception as planting multiple eggs at one time, proving multiple transfers does no more than just one and is not necessary (WebMD. 2016.). Even though it is not impossible, it is more likely due to number of eggs to conceive twins or triplets from separate embryos making them non-identical and causing a high risk factor for twin to twin transfusion syndrome which can cause serious health risks and deaths(One at a Time.2016.).
IVF Debate

Being able to screen the embryos can be very beneficial. Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) allows doctors to check for any abnormalities. For example, they can screen for an abnormal number of chromosomes. PGS could detect genetic diseases such as Down Syndrome. Then tests such as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) can detect diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis (Richard Sherbahn, MD). Also with genetic screening, there is a higher success rate. Single cycle IVF success rates can be raised significantly when 2 or 3 embryos known to be chromosomally normal are transferred. The chance of healthy pregnancy may double when known genetically normal embryos are utilized. Implantation rates can also be raised greatly with PGD (The Fertility Institutes).
IVF Debate

The issue that arises with allowing couples to "adopt" an embryo from someone who does not want to discard is that screening allows for couples to create a designer child. They can check to see the hair color and eye color of the child and with advancements in technology soon characteristics like height for sports reasons (Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson. 6 August 2013.). Screening also allows for the ability to chose the sex of the child which could prove an issue since in the United States, it has been proven that girls are favored over boys (Amy Klein. 18 March 2014.). Technology that is currently banned in the United States but is legal in several other countries allows scientics and doctors to combine the DNA of 3 people to eliminate mutations that cause blindness and epilepsy. The United States FDA is currently re-examining the procedure for a chance to re-legalize the three parent idea. If this procedure is passed, then the door is opened for designing a child with the ideal appearance and intelligence bases on the combination of multiple parents; allowing parents to change their child throughout the IVF process. "Studies show that the child earns less, will be more likely to be bullied, or may not be asked to lead. Parents will want a taller child" said Ronald Green, a Dartmouth Professor. We cannot play God (Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson. 6 August 2013).
IVF Debate

In the past embryos have been discarded because the couple no longer wanted them. But present day, new options of what to do with the eggs are being introduced. To deal with this issue, agencies have been created to set up an adoption system for unused embryos. Agencies like the Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency have application and screening processes that mimic adoption. Their "Snowflake" adoption program matches genetic parents who do not wish to destroy or implant their extra embryos with couples who want to adopt them. Since starting the program, Nightlight has matched 212 genetic couples with 139 adoptive families. Thus far, 79 babies have been born, with 8 adopting families currently expecting at least 11 more. (Mariah Wojdacz, Dec 2009) And as technology advances, more options of what to do with unused embryos will develop.
IVF Debate

The evolution of technology does not take away the unethical issues that arise from the usage of the embryo and not just the safety of the procedure itself. The most immense issue is the complication of discarding the unused embryos that were taken, but previous embryos were taken and therefore no need for the remaining extracted. Human life begins at fertilization, then IVF should be required to follow the norms of human research and the guidelines. Therefore, for those eggs that are discarded, is the same as discarding humans. Through research out of 150 implants of embryos in humans, only about 4 were actually successful and only 1 carried to term. "From the first moment of conception (which is at the point of fertilization and the embyro is formed), a human be recognized as having the rights of a person." Human life cannot be overlooked just for the sake of scientific technology advancement to benefit society if it defys the morals and guidelines set for scientific research (A Banerjee. 2006.)
IVF Debate

Although IVF allows couples who are infertle to have the opportunity to concieve there are several harmful effects to using the conventional IVF procedure. Drug protocols shut down the woman's regular cycle and takes 4-6 weeks to take effect. For the carrier mother, Ovarian hyperstimulation Syndrome is extremely common(CREATE Health ltd.2016). Also if the eggs are taken, then there are effects on the pregnancy such as a spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, underweight and premature birth, and for the mother a risk of preclampsia which cause an extreme rise in blood pressure and if undiagnosed can cause deaths (WebMD.2016).
Abortion

My opp FFed that round possibly due to work hence I will just extend what I have already written rather than introduce new stuff to give my opp. a fair shot, to get my opp's arguments in. Not to be overloaded. brief points: 1 By outlawing abortions it impedes on a women's right. Slavery is when someone owns someone else's body. Hence women in a paternalistic Earth who are oppressed due to sex or gender already by gaining their right to their body by utilizing abortion is pro women. Further, outlawing will only increase unsafe abortions.2 Adoption is not available for every single woman on planet earth---ie. Liberia. Why is a women going to risk her life in Liberia to have an abortion when their is such a high mortality rate due to the increasing unsafe abortions? new- 3 adding onto 1, What is being aborted? Is it a human or is it not a human? Humans interact with each other. Humans demonstrate capabilities. A fetus that is not a human yet or possess any or vary in mortal qualities should be rightfully aborted by a woman. Many pro lifers state that murder occurs when the fetus is aborted, however the fetus has no ability for living, if killed it is not even a crime because genocide did not occur due to the fetus not having the ability in continuance. Source:Deathbeforedishonor.I read the point on the fetus and found it to be entertaining so I just wanted to put it into the cards here. Generally Abortion debates are cliche but that point (3) was intersting by the debater and I have not heard that idea yet. http://www.debate.org...
Baptism is not necessary for salvation

Pro has simply ignored all of the arguments that I made against his claims in the previous round. Instead he has brought up the thief on the cross, which is a story that many people run to when questioned about the necessity of baptism. There are a few points to be made about the claim that the thief on the cross indicates that baptism is not necessary. 1. Remember that the baptism of Christ was not established until after His death, in Mark 16:16. Thus, the thief could not have been baptized into Christ. Jesus had not yet died, been buried or raised. Before He gave the command, it was through the baptism of John the Baptist that people were baptized. Of course, they were later baptized again, this time into Christ (Acts 19:1-5 is an excellent example). 2. JESUS PHYSICALLY TOLD THE THIEF that he would be saved, because only He has that authority. 3. It seems quite distressing to me that the thief on the cross would be used as an example for salvation in the first place. Here's a guy who has no indication of prior baptism and is sentenced to death for his crimes, and only when he is on the brink of death does he receive salvation- from JESUS IN THE FLESH. Sounds like he was in the "right place" at the "right time," does it not? Is the thief on the cross seriously upheld as a model for salvation? A sinful man who was not baptized, and then is only saved by Christ Himself? It is an upsetting thought, that so many Christians would use this story to justify their claims that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Thanks a bunch to Pro for accepting this debate. I certainly hope that anybody following the debate will be inspired to search this topic further, and that God's truth will be revealed.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation

Baptism is not necessary for salvation because of the people who were saved without baptism 39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." This tells us that this criminal rebuked the other by saying "don't you fear God" and he said that he wasn't going to Heaven but Jesus said to him that he was saved right there http://biblia.com...
Baptism is not necessary for salvation

Thank you for posting your argument. It seems that Pro has started with the usual argument: "it doesn't mention it here, so it's not necessary." Specifically he cites John 3:16 which we all know: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, and whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Pro implies that since the passage does not mention baptism as a requirement to have eternal life, it must be unnecessary. Let's follow Pro's logic here. The passage does not include baptism, so this must mean that it is unnecessary to gain eternal life. NEITHER does the passage mention repentance. Or living faithfully, or even "accepting Jesus into your heart" as the usual saying goes. Therefore, we must conclude that repenting of your sins, accepting Jesus into your heart, and living faithfully are not necessary for salvation either. So all we have to do is believe that God exists, and we are free to live any lifestyle we choose, without repenting or living morally, or even accepting Christ as our savior? It becomes clear, then, that the all-too-common "arguments from omission" fall apart pretty easily. Rich man and Lazarus Pro states that he does not believe that Lazarus, the beggar in Jesus' parable in Luke 16:19-31, was baptized on the grounds that he was a poor man. I fail to see how the poverty of Lazarus indicates that he was not baptized. The passage clearly indicates that Lazarus went to heaven when he died. How is this possible if he did not HEAR the message and respond to it? The rich man even begged Abraham to let Lazarus warn his household that they will end up in hell if they do not repent. If he had the means to have the message of Christ preached to him, what prevented him from being baptized? Remember in Matthew 3 that John the Baptist was baptizing people from Jerusalem and all over Judea. Are we to believe that ONLY the rich people were baptized? Many of the disciples themselves were no doubt from less fortunate backgrounds, and we see in John 4:2 that they were the ones who were baptizing. This is solid evidence that there was evangelism among the poor. Also don't forget the Apostles themselves, many of whom came from humble livelihoods such as fishermen. Of course, the rich man and Lazarus come from a parable, which is sort of a hypothetical situation, but they are nevertheless instructive. I now turn the discussion back over to Pro.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation

Baptism is not necessary for salvation because John 3:16 says "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" I think baptism is a symbol to the world that you have given your life to Christ you don't have to do that to have salvation like when Jesus told a parable of a rich man and a poor man in Luke 16:19-31 it tells us that the rich man had everything he wanted and Lazarus had nothing so I think he did not get baptized because he had nothing.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation

You were supposed to make the first argument in round 1. I guess we'll have to do it a little differently. Post your first argument in this round, and I will of course respond in the next. The rules for the 4th round still apply. We each have two chances to argue now. Regarding your question, yes you can use your testimony as an argument, or better to say you can use it IN your argument. The floor is yours, Pro. Why is baptism not necessary for salvation?
Baptism is not necessary for salvation

There is a considerable amount of scholarship on both sides of this issue. One school of thought preaches baptism as an absolute necessity for salvation, while the other preaches it as merely a symbol and that all it takes to be saved is acceptance of Jesus into your heart. I am taking the Con position, that is, the position that Jesus explicitly commands us to be baptized in order to receive salvation. My opponent will take the Pro position and must attempt to prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation. FORMAT- please read carefully! My opponent will present an opening argument in the first round. I'll begin my response in the second round. 4TH ROUND- to keep it fair, Pro will not present any new arguments in the 4th round. This ensures that both of us will have three chances to post an argument. Pro may make a brief closing statement if he wishes. The rules for the debate are pretty simple- 1. As always, both debaters are expected to treat each other with the respect that Christ would have us display. No personal attacks or profanity. 2. Please accept ONLY if you define yourself as a Christian who accepts the belief that baptism is unnecessary for salvation. Don't accept just to troll or play devil's advocate. I also ask that you only accept if you plan to stick around for the entirety of the debate. 3. Votes and comments are encouraged, but I respectfully ask that no hateful or belittling remarks be made against any person or group of people, religious or not. Such remarks are uncalled for and do not prove anything. A big thank you in advance to whoever accepts this debate!
Emotion manipulation equals votes

We can rewirte emotional manipulation equals votes as EM (emotional manipulation) = V (votes). If EM = V, then V = EM. This means that every single vote must necessarily be emotional manipulation, which Pro cannot show. What Pro meant to write but didn't was that EM LEADS TO V, or EM yields V, or EM >>> V. However, he didn't. And EM doesn't yield ALL V, anyway.
Guitar Is Cooler Than Bass

Oh mother fcking cocck sucking cuum guzzling piece of degenerate trash who is long overdue killing himself with a piece of $h!t razor blade in a dark alley way full of people ready to raape the dead body and contract gonorrhea, I daamn straight know I have not just read the debate topic with the eyes godd has given me. Jk, In all seriousness, Bass is much cooler than guitar. Bass is the unsung hero of the band. It adds so much to the overall presence that a song contrives. First off, There are 3 parts to music, melody, harmony, and rhythm. Bass encompasses both harmony and rhythm in a song while a [Lead] Guitar only encompasses melody. Basically, it doesn't provide as much to the band. Second reasoning, Bass [Sound] is just much cooler anyway. Have you ever turned only the treble on in your car stereo? Sounds Like $h!t. Have you ever turned on just the Bass? Still $h!t, but definitely not as bad. After all, you don't here dubstep creators saying drop the treble or lead guitar when a cool part in a song comes on. Third, I am going to denounce your statement proclaiming that Bass Parts in songs are more "Boring" In songs because there is too much variety of music where this doesn't hold true and the guitar plays like one chord all song while bass is jamming out. Heck, Bass is even a more widely accepted instrument overall. Because of it's subtle nature, it can be played in almost any genre, unlike guitars, which have more defined tastes. And last, you don't know what true fun is until you learn to play slap bass. Holy fcking $h!t. That $h!t is off the walls. Slap guitar you say??? Get the ffuck out.
Guitar Is Cooler Than Bass

I would like to begin my argument by saying that I do not think bass isn't important or cool I just think that guitar is a cooler instrument. Guitar is way cooler than bass because it is just plain out more fun to play. Guitar parts in songs are typically more fun to play unless you are talking about playing stuff from Muse, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus, and other bands like them. The majority of songs have more fun guitar parts than bass parts.
Guitar Is Cooler Than Bass

First of all I wanted to keep this debate civil you piece of $hit. Secondly you say that bass is the unsung hero of the band when I had already acknowledged that bass was very important all I'm trying to say is that Guitar is cooler. Also you say that bass provides two of the three main parts of music where as lead guitar only provides one. Firstly, I'm not only talking about lead guitar I'm talking about all kinds of guitar including rhythm. The combination of lead and rhythm guitar provides all three of the main parts of music and makes the song amazing. Secondly, can you imagine rock music without guitars? It would suck. Bass may provide harmony and rhythm but melody is overall the most important part of music. Music wouldn't be as good if their was no melody it would get boring after awhile just listening to the bass line over and over. I should have clarified at the beginning of this debate that I am talking about in the rock, hard rock, and metal genres guitar is cooler. In genres like Jazz, funk, and dubstep bass is the much cooler and more important instrument but not in rock.
The Death Sentence Should be Used

1. If your family was murdered are you at peace knowing that the man or women who did it gets to sit behind bars and live there life peacefully? Their are countless stories about families who plead for justice and the death sentence, but are denied. 2. Each state execution deters an average of 14 murders. http://dailysignal.com... 3.Just because some criminals can change does not mean the majority of them will. What if you let them out and they do commit more crime? It is not worth the risk. 4. Of course there are mistakes. Every system has mistakes. This does not mean it should be abolished.