BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

Although they remove some of the embryos and that might consider to be unethical, it is also safer because the doctors choose the healthiest embryo for the healthiest baby and if they don't choose the healthy embryo it can lead to a miscarriage and other birth defects. Also, IVF can actually do genetic screening on the embryos, which means the doctors and specialists are able to test for specific genetic conditions, such as genetic diseases and chromosomal translocations. They are also able to detect problems with the mother, such as if she has a history of miscarriages and why she would have hat history; therefore being beneficial for the health of the mother and the child. Lastly, IVF has had a safety track record, meaning that the treatment is safe and they are able to eliminate other problems for the mother and the embryo. (Richard Sherbahn, "What is PGD, or preimplantation testing?")
IVF Debate

IVF carries ethical issues for many people, they might consider that human life begins with the development of embryo. According to MacKenna Roberts from IVF News, Between 1991 and 2005, over 2 million embryonic lives were lost. With that, during this period, the HFEA informed that the total of live babies born through IVF procedures was 109,469. In other words only 5.1% of all embryos created resulted in a Live Birth.
IVF Debate

Although IVF can create complications such as multiple births. IVF can eliminate certain long term complications that can affect both the mother and the embryo, such as birth defects. The doctors are able to monitor the embryo closely before getting implanted into the uterus and what the doctors do is that they make sure that the embryo is healthy, being able to eliminate hereditary diseases and other possible birth defects that can not be monitored via natural pregnancy. It guarantees the doctors pick the healthiest baby possible for the pregnancy because it eliminates other future complications. (Adam Brimelow, "Fertility chief calls for clarity on pros and cons of IVF")
IVF Debate

According to Createhealth.org, on Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF. This type of treatment carries the risk of accidental multiple birth, which is when more than one embryo is transferred to the uterus. It increases the risk of having premature baby or one with low birth weight. The success rate of IVF is not guaranteed, there are often cases where patients have to undergo more than one cycle of treatment for it to be successful. Currently just over 25% of all IVF cycles result in a live birth.
IVF Debate

IVF is beneficial is a variety of ways. IVF is able to allow those who are unable to have a baby, have a child if they desire, such as single women, infertile women and men, and same-sex couples. Those who are unable to have a child without the assistance from medical professionals will most likely resort to IVF if they are determined to have their own children. (La Jolla, "Why Choose IVF?")
IVF Debate

In reality to IVF, many families worldwide have been produced through this treatment and many countries are using IVF treatments, such as United States, Mexico, Barbados, Turkey, Greece, India, Thailand, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Dubai, Singapore, Poland, Costa Rica, Peru, and the list goes on throughout the world (IVF Abroad, "Popular Locations for IVF Abroad") This shows that the usage of IVF is accepted through different countries throughout the world, meaning that it's doing something right because if they aren't why would it be popularized and used through different cultures and an increasing amount of people seeking help for assistance in fertilization. If IVF is used through these different countries internationally, the odds are the amount of success for IVF is relatively high enough for people to popularize it and use it. IVF has 5 million successful babies world wide. (News Staff, "Is IVF Safe?") But the twin birth rates, without IVF is 1 to 31 births. Twin births depend on various reasons, such as age, hereditary factors, number of pregnancies and race. (Baby Center Medical Adviser Board, "Your likelihood of having twins or more") Risk factors always occur whenever pregnant with or without IVF treatments, but it's actually stated that IVF prevents long term effect and birth defects, but IVF just like a normal pregnancy increases the chance of having a child, either single, multiple, triplet, etc; where the main purpose of IVF was to have children and the chances of having double does increase that chance, but there is always a chance of having multiple babies, in one time. (What To Expect, "What are your chances of having twins?") Nonetheless, IVF is achieving what it aims for, increases the chance of fertility, preventing and eliminating certain problems and complications for the mother and child, assisting those who thrive to have a family one day, and gives those hope to have a chance at family, motherhood and/or fatherhood. Giving those couples who have infertility problems, the 1 in 6 couples who have a problem with conceiving, their chance in a family. (Elizabeth Kirk, "10 Things Your Really Need to Know About IVF Before Using It") Lastly, IVF goes through vigorous tests on the possible recipients to ensure that they are healthy enough and eligible for the treatment, ensuring that they reduce chances of other complications. (Kate Brian, "The Amazing Story of IVF: 35 years later and 5 million babies") In the end, IVF is supported worldwide, through 5 million successful babies, reduction of long term complications, increase in the opportunity for a family for anyone, and increases the "ordinary miracle."
IVF Debate

Although major medical advances have improved the outcomes of multiple births, multiple births still are associated with significant medical risks and complications for the mother and children. The associated risks include: premature labor, miscarriage, need for cesarean, stillbirth and infant health problems, which are due to fertility clinics appearing to not have robust single embryo transfer policies. With the following risks, I will back my points with the following evidence: Preterm Birth--According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine website, this poses the greatest risk in regard to multiple pregnancy. "Sixty percent of multiples are born prematurely (<37 weeks) compared to about 10% of singleton pregnancies." Placental Problems--For multiple pregnancy, the placental function is more likely to be abnormal. If the scenario occurs where the placenta is not able to provide adequate oxygen or nutrients to the fetus, the fetus will be unable to grow properly. This ages prematurely and can cause slower fetal growth, particularly in the third trimester (American Society for Reproductive Medicine). Preeclampsia--occurs 2 or 5 times more often in multiple pregnancies. Women with twin pregnancies that experience preeclampsia range from fifteen to twenty percent, the percentage in triplet or high-order pregnancies with a much higher percentage. This condition may threaten the health of both the mother and the baby, with severe cases such as the mother having seizures, stroke, or other fatal complications being the possibilities. Fetal and newborn complications--about 20% of triplet pregnancies will result in the delivery of at least one child with a major long-term handicap. Preterm delivery places an infant at increased risk for severe complications or early death. The lungs, brain, circulatory system, intestinal system, and eyes of a baby may not be fully developed (ASRM).
IVF Debate

According to CNN News, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology reported their latest report on the success of IVF pregnancies, in 2014. Other than the fact that IVF has gotten really popular for women throughout the nation, over 165,172 producers and performances were done for IVF treatments, including donating eggs and sperm for the research and for those who needed the eggs and sperm. These resulted to the birth of 61,740 babies in 2012, alone - which is 2,000 more babies than 2011. This shows that IVF has been improving on their technology and increasing birth rates. Also according to the Centers for Disease Control, they report that since 2007 birth rates throughout the nation is declining and IVF contributes to the growth in birth rates. (Jen Christensen, "Record Number of Women Using IVF To Get Pregnant") More and more people have been using IVF because of the increase in age for new mothers and as someone ages, their fertility declines because of the inability to produce healthy eggs and as the men get older, the sperm aren't able to swim as well, leading to an unhealthy future child and infertility. Without the IVF treatment an average healthy woman in her 30's would have a 15-20% chance of fertility and a women in her 40's has 5% chance of fertility, but with IVF their chances increase between 35-40% fertility even at the age of 40. (Dina Roth Port, "What to Know About Infertility, in Your 20s, 30s, and 40s?") And also, in June 27, 2015 - the legalization of same sex marriages occurred throughout the nations - and same sex couples are utilizing the technology of IVF to be able to have their own children just like any other couple out there. In 2010, alone (before the legalization of same-sex) had about 170,000 cases that are undergoing IVF treatment - through sperm, egg denotations and surrogates, in which as popularity in IVF increases and those who are seeking the treatment increases, the birth rates through IVF will increase. Lastly, usually same-sex couples utilizing donations and surrogates for the pregnancy through IVF have over a 70% success rate for females and close to 100 percent of gay male couples have a successful pregnancy and baby through the second treatment of IVF. (Dr. Samuel Pang, "IVF For Gay Couples")
IVF Debate

Wanted embryos are obtained; however, not all embryos are wanted. Excess embryos that are produced will be conducted upon with destructive research. The most common arguments for this is that embryos are also living beings. More than 50% of embryos die within eight weeks of conception--this phenomenon known as spontaneous abortion (Leridon, 1977; Boklage, 1990). On the basis of this evidence, there are more than 220 million natural embryo deaths worldwide each year(Ord, 2008). Suppose if embryos were persons, it should be concluded that more than 220 million people die each year because of spontaneous abortion--more than 7 times as many people that died from cancer (EMBO reports).
Affirmative action is bad for society

You say that the capitalist system does not see race. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that the process by which we move our money about cannot see race, then you're right. Abstract concepts cannot see race, or anything for that matter. But what i suspect you mean is that people, like employers, do not see race - that they only see talent and competency. This is obviously untrue. We all see race. It is impossible for me not to notice whether someone I'm talking to is Black, White, Asian, or whatever. And unfortunately, we all have our own prejudices against (or for) everything, including race. This is a fact. Studies have been done where resumes have been sent out to business that are identical - except that one has a stereotypically "White" sounding name (Bill, Steve, Tiffany, etc. ), and one has a typically "Black" sounding name (Tyra, Tyrone, DeMarkus, etc. ) or the other "Asian" sounding name (Ming, Leng, Maria). More often there, the "white" name would be called in for an interview over the "Black" or "Asian" name. Prejudice is real, and programs like Affirmative Action help minorities to succeed in a world that is engineered for them to fail. White people already have Affirmative Action working for them. Success is primarily based on who you know, and how much money you started out with. Think about all the jobs you've ever had. Did you get them all from your own pluck and determination? Or were some (if not most) facilitated by a preexisting relationship with someone withing the organization? There are more Whites in positions of power (a cursory glance at your parliament, monarchy or US senate will prove that), and therefore Whites are in a better position to become successful. Now, I think I've proved that Affirmative Action (US), Employment Equity (Canada) or Positive Discrimination (UK) is by and large GOOD for society because it gives an edge to those who are already fighting against the current. Wouldn't you say leveling the playing field is good for society? But your assertion is not that Affirmative Action is unfair to Whites or that it does no good for society. Your argument is that it is BAD for society. I'm interested in how you'll prove that. Supposing Affirmative Action works perfectly and all of a sudden there are as many Blacks, Asians, Indians, and so on in positions of power as there are Whites. How is that BAD for your society?
Infanticide should be encouraged up to the age of 3

Infanticide 1. the act of killing an infant. Encourage: 2. to stimulate by assistance, approval, etc.: One of the chief duties of a teacher is to encourage students. 3. to promote, advance, or foster: Poverty often encourages crime. ========= Let's begin with a framework. In the status quo infanticide is not encouraged very much at all. In fact, quite normally it is frowned upon, unless one considers abortion infanticide, something I will not be doing in this debate. Infanticide is normally seen as the same as killing another human being. Infants in contemporary society are considered to have the same rights as any other human (below the age of 18). Thus I am going to be showing why infanticide ought to be encouraged, more than in the status quo, through showing that infants should not have any rights at all. ========= An infant is born into this world without thought, without moderation. An infant follows one governing principle, the principle of the Id. The infant thereby is a byproduct of the pleasure principle. In other words an infant is the exact same as any other animal at this time of development. It does not engage in critical thought, it does not engage in anything outside of what it wants. The infant does not accept the idea of no, it simply wants and pursues those desires. In other words an infant is no different from any other animal. It has the same senses as other mammals, it has the same basic desires, and it lacks the critical thought of the Ego and Super-Ego inherent in most children-adult humans. Thus I stand in firm affirmation. Infanticide should be encouraged to the same level that killing any other animal is societally accepted. For example, we have stipulations in place against animal abuse and animal cruelty, thus these stipulations would carry over onto infanticide. However we do not have such stipulations on animal death for things such as food or in some instances fur (depending on if the species is going extinct, which we are not) thus infanticide should be societally accepted for use of food or fur. Thank you.
Infanticide should be encouraged up to the age of 3

On another debate, debate.org member Yraelz makes the pronouncement, "Infanticide should be encouraged in all situations. Infants should not have the rights until 3 years of age." Source: http://www.debate.org... Provided (s)he accepts the debate, I would like for Yraelz to present the reason why this should be lawfully and morally encouraged in all situations, and why infants should not have rights until the age of three years of age.
dog fighting 11

Dog fighting is a type of blood sport were dogs are forced to fight one another for the entertainment and profit of spectators.Dog fighting is one of the worst forms of animal cruelty. Although dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states people still do it in houses pits even campers in the woods.one of the three reasons I am against dog fighting is the animal suffers deformity. Can and will get there wounds infected. And there pups are sold of for more dog fighting reasons. Number two dog fighting is a way to make money for some people that"s just wrong. And some people get drugs as a reward and more steroids for there dogs.
The Cosmological Argument is Sound

I accept and agree to termsMy opponents argument will essentially be: (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore:(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore:(5) God exists. To meet my BOP, I must show the illogic of this argument; that it is either untrue or does not follow. I shall show this later, by refuting my opponents case. Lets hear what he has to say ... Goodluck!
The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Ave, ladies and gentlemen. I've decided to challenge TheHitchslap to a debate on the Cosmological Argument. He's obviously a fan of Christopher Hitchens, the late member of the New Atheist movement. I think it will be interesting, then, to see what he has to say about this argument. Perhaps he will fare better than his hero did against William Lane Craig at Biola University.The cosmological argument for this debate will be the one that William Lane Craig uses. Everything that begins exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause of its existence.God is defined as the timeless, immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing.Soundness means that the premises of the argument are true, and that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. After my opening statement, each round of the debate will be constant back and forth rebuttals.My burden of proof in this debate is to show that the cosmological argument is more plausible than the negation by inference to the best conclusion. Con's obligation is to negate my argument. General rules of conduct should be followed. Using pictures and images as quotes/references/arguments is acceptable.Vale.
Low-fat diets are not really healthy

"Both saturated and trans fats increase heart disease risk, by mechanisms such as raising so-called "bad" cholesterol (LDL) and lowering "good" cholesterol (HDL), according to the American Heart Association (AHA)." (1) I am pretty sure that the American Heart Association knows what it talking about when it comes to things like this. Eating this type of diet can lower your good cholesterol which is what is needed to keep you healthy. It also raised the bad cholesterol which makes you sick. "Bottom Line: Low-Fat diets can adversely affect important risk factors for heart disease like LDL pattern, HDL and triglycerides." (2) Low-fat diets are not always what your body needs to lose weight, so going on a diet like this may do more harm than good. They are not always the magic solution. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://authoritynutrition.com...
Low-fat diets are not really healthy

The key word here is suggest, your study suggest a low-fat diet weakens the immune system. Every couple years there seem to be some kind of study that total contradict another study. They suggest because they don't know. Also where is this study from? What hospital ? Which university? I have a publication from Harvard University stating ". For now, there are no scientifically proven direct links between lifestyle and enhanced immune function." Regarding diet "Like any fighting force, the immune system army marches on its stomach. Immune system warriors need good, regular nourishment. Scientists have long recognized that people who live in poverty and are malnourished are more vulnerable to infectious diseases. Whether the increased rate of disease is caused by malnutrition"s effect on the immune system, however, is not certain. There are still relatively few studies of the effects of nutrition on the immune system of humans, and even fewer studies that tie the effects of nutrition directly to the development (versus the treatment) of diseases." They did mention having a general healthy life style will help the immune system and had this line to say about diet. "Eat a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in saturated fat."Eat a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in saturated fat." This goes back to what I said in round 2, eating the right kind of food is more important. Like eating the right kind of fats. Just to reenforce what I said in the opening regarding the source you got your article from and how there are always studies to contradict another study. Here's a study from Tufts University a top 10 medical school . " "Tufts University scientists have found that, when volunteers with high cholesterol levels switched to a low-fat diet, they not only lost weight, but significantly enhanced their immunity, an important factor in cancer prevention. Ten participants were initially instructed to follow a standard American-style diet deriving 35 percent of calories from fat. Then they followed three subsequent diets: one made up of 26 percent fat, one made up of 15 percent fat, and, lastly, a 15 percent fat diet with a further reduction in calories. Each diet drove cholesterol levels down, but only the last phase was associated with marked improvement in cellular immune response." http://pcrm.org...
Low-fat diets are not really healthy

"But the study suggests that low-fat diets weaken the immune system and slow the body"s healing process and make it less effective." (1) When you are eating a low-fat diet it would never occur to you that you could be doing damage to your body. But you very well might be. When your immune system is weakened and can"t fight off infections or anything of that nature, it can be very bad for your health. "A lack of fats and cholesterol can allow damage in arteries and veins to reach critical levels and lead to heart attacks, strokes or organ failure." (1) People need to be putting fats into their everyday meals to keep their bodies performing at their full potential. There are other ways that you can eat if you need to lose weight or keep weight off without doing damage to your body. With cancer being as big as it is, I would much rather eat something fatty and feel guilty than eat something low-fat and run the risk of getting cancer.