BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

With In Vitro Fertilization being as successful as it is, there are multiple procedures and solutions to avoid and resolve the problems that might arise during the process. According to New Life Agency, In Vitro Fertilization- the very procedure that has played a part in the rise of multiple births- is playing an important new role in reducing multiple births thanks to the new technology and techniques. One procedure is Blastocyst Culture and Transfer where clinicians will grow embryos in a nutrient-rich media for five days instead of the conventional three. This allows them to select the healthiest, promising embryos for implantation. This means that fewer will need to be implanted and if needed, the remainder will be frozen for future use. There is also Elective Single Embryo Transfer where a single embryo will be placed in a women under 35. This is because studies have shown that implanting multiple embryos in women undertheageof35 increases the chance of multiple births instead of improving the pregnancy rate. (http://www.resolve.org...) In Vitro Fertilization is said to also have the risk of causing preterm birth. There is however a drug that was approved on February 3rd, 2011 by the FDA to help reduce the risk of preterm birth. This is a progesterone supplement (hydroxyprogesterone caproate) that has proven effective in reducing the risk. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Another problem that is said to arise due to In Vitro Fertilization is Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. This is best prevented by very careful use of injectable FSH medication in women who are at risk of hyperstimulation. Another procedure that has been proven very effective with OHSS is a Lupron trigger. This is where use of Lupron (a GnRH agonist medication) instead of HCG (traditional method) tiggers final maturation of the follicles and eggs for In Vitro Fertilization. The Lupron trigger can eliminate or dramatically reduce the risk of OHSS. (http://www.advancedfertility.com...) If in the very rare case there is excessive bleeding from the ovaries or injuries to organs close the ovaries, a blood transfusion or surgery to repair the damage may be needed. Pelvic infection, while very rare, is another risk and can be avoided by checking to see if the woman has had prior pelvic infections because women who have are more at risk. (https://www.winfertility.com...) Finally, a study was found that the risk of any cancer (including ovarian) was 26% lower in women after they conceived via In Vitro Fertilization versus those who conceived naturally. (http://www.nccrm.com...)
IVF Debate

Although IVF can provide infertile couples with a child, the process of and going through IFV have many risks. The most common result of IVF is the women giving multiple births. Because she is implanted with multiple embryos, there is a high chance on giving birth to multiple fetuses. A pregnancy with multiple fetuses carries a risk of either early labor or the babies being underweight. If the procedure is successful, some experts believe the baby is more prone to birth defects after birth. There is also a large chance of miscarriages. According to the mayo clinic 15-20% of IVF who use fresh embryos end with miscarriages and the percent using frozen embryos is even higher. Also about 2-5% of women who use IVF will have an ectopic pregnancy. This is when the egg is placed in the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus, so the egg doesn"t survive. Even before the fertilization occurs, the woman has many health risks. The first being Ovarian Hyper stimulation syndrome, where the use of drugs causes the ovaries to swell. Other symptoms also consist of painful bloating, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and if the pregnancy is successful however, the symptoms last several weeks, and weight gain or shortness of breath may also occur. The egg retrieval procedure also consists of complications. The needle used to collect eggs could cause bleeding, infection, damage of the bowel, bladder or a blood vessel, according to the mayo clinic. These infections and the use of certain medications can also increase the risk of the woman developing ovarian cancer. Along with the medical risks, IVF can also cause extreme stress to both the male and female involved. This is because the risks are higher for this procedure and the financial needs are extremely high. The stress not only affects both parties emotionally, but they could also complicate the woman"s physical state, even more. (http://www.mayoclinic.org...)
IVF Debate

In the article "Why Choose IVF?" by David B. Smotrich, founder and medical director at the fertility center, La Jolla IVF, it discusses the basic benefits of In Vitro Fertilization. The first being that it allows any individual or couple to have a baby regardless of familial status, sexual orientation, or the inability to have a child from either parent. Parents who have had a hard time conceiving or who are incapable of having children have used In Vitro Fertilization as a way to have a child. In Vitro Fertilization helps both patients and doctors address infertility issues. It was traditionally used to help both men and women who are infertile. For example, women with missing, damaged, or blocked fallopian tubes were some on the first patients to use In Vitro Fertilization. The women"s egg is fertilized outside of the females body and then placed inside her uterus, increases her chances for implantation. In Vitro Fertilization increase the couples chances of having a healthy pregnancy and child. Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis is possible and allows couples to identify chromosomal deficiencies in the embryo before it is placed inside the mother"s uterus. Finally, In Vitro Fertilization allows a couple to have a baby when they want to or are ready to have a child. It allows couples to have more control over factors such as spacing out their children, getting pregnant when they"re ready, and knowing when the child will be born. (http://www.lajollaivf.com...)
the presidency of barack obama

Thank you, I would first like to say that I do not believe Barack Obama has had a good presidency but I don not believe his will be remembered to be bad. My supporting statement clearly shows Barack Obama has had many accomplishments ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Ladin, and reviving the economy (for now). See you can not judge a president with opinion so throughout the debate I will be providing facts and his accomplishments, I will bring this up in the least one sided way as I can. Thank you I await your response.
Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed

Older American adults are in duress due to today's climate. From the highest levels of technology that Americans have ever seen, to a disturbingly high rate of skill obsolescence and turnover from automation and workforce replacement, Millennials are rapidly changing the workplace dynamic. Older workers find themselves over-priced and under-skilled leading to high unemployment rates, defaulting mortgages, excessive credit card debt, and dwindling retirement packages. (Sounds a little silly for old people like me to play the 'woe is us' card, no? ) It is my stance that the youth of our nation have a greater opportunity presented to them than ever before. The internet is a game changer and a playing field-leveler that favors younger entrepreneurs who can keep pace with a dynamically changing environment. Millennials are best positioned to take advantage of that. If millennials hope to break into the established, and aging, workplaces then I understand the frustration. Changing the age of majority (18) will do nothing to fix that since a college degree is pretty much a requirement anyway for entry level industry jobs. There is no real justification for removing the rights that come with the age of majority from the 18-21 year old millennials. You will only remove legal rights from a group that is more than capable of exploiting the technical opportunities, staffing service industries, entering legal contracts, joining the military, and becoming entrepreneurs. True, it's a different workforce climate. Restricting the next gen's legal rights by delaying them 4 years would do far more harm than help. My stance is to keep the age of majority at 18.
Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed

Young American adults are in duress due to today's climate. From the highest expectations in education that Americans have ever seen, to a disturbingly high unemployment and poverty rate, Millennials are suffering. It is my stance that the youth of our nation are asked far more than previous generations with only the same amount of time to ready themselves for life, and, therefore, the age of adulthood should be set back to until a person reaches the age of 22.
Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed

When the accepted age of adulthood was set at 18, most jobs in America did not require anything more than a high school diploma. In essence, the government provided young adults with the necessary education to succeed in their world by ensuring that they could obtain the education to get them into the careers they need. Colleges, back then, were extras, for overachievers who wanted more. Thus, colleges were attended by those who had the financial means to afford it and the intelligence to perform at a high enough level to obtain a degree and become integral parts of society in its more important positions. In America today, however, most non-poverty wage jobs require post-secondary education. In today's society, the secondary school diploma is worth as much as a primary school diploma, and a bachelor's degree is worth as much as a secondary school diploma was worth a few generations ago Because of this, most young Americans need to attend college so as to be able to be a part of the middle class. The government, however, does very little if anything at all to help young adults attain college, and therefore, forcing young adults to fend for themselves, causing them to accrue large debts, and forcing college-bound students to work exorbitant hours in jobs where they only can earn poverty wages, because they don't have the degree that would afford them the opportunity to work in jobs that would pay decent wages. In short, the American government does not afford its young citizens the necessary education to succeed in today's world anymore, instead asking them to take the burden of getting their own education by themselves. The sad truth of the current state of American society is that the Millennial generation constantly gets blamed for acting entitled, when we only act that way because we are the first generation that hasn't had the basics afforded to us by older generations. We have actually had to work and pay to get the bare minimum. While individual parents have been pockets of hope, not everyone has a good set of parents. It is for this reason the free public education exists, and with the age of adulthood being pushed back a few years, free public education could be raised to include underclass post-secondary education.
Tird wave Feminism has gone too far.

In this debate I will support the opinion that Third wave feminism has gone too far. While the first and second wave focused on general equality issues. Third wave feminism has halted and has begun to look for ways to give advantages to one half of the population while attacking the second half. This Marxist ideology has stopped looking for actual cases of injustice and inequality throughout the world. Feminism once having achieved its goals of equality in the western world has continued to argue for those same policies. Since the ideologies goals have already come to fruition this can only create inequality. The biggest arguments I will address are equal pay, healthcare and the attack on men's behavior. I will do this in a unique way by citing Beauvoir one of the most prominent feminists. To do this I will address how this ideology objectifies men while maintaining that they are the victims. Good luck and my the best rhetoric win.
Bassists are underrated

Wingnut, my point is not to elaborate on the fact that bassists are underappreciated by bands; but it is time to expose the true potential of the bass, its beautiful, hypnotic sound, the reuptation of a true rock intsrument it truly deserves. I hope bands around the world take notice of their neglect for their bassist and his instrument, and choose to move him further up on the stage and in the recording studio.
Bassists are underrated

The reason the bass is not underrated is the very reasons you state. Its not just because the bass is in the back on stage. I think you put it best... < > If the bass is so absent from all of the songs people listen to, why do they seserve more credit? You admit that I can't hear him, see him, or know who he is. Why should he get more recognition then? You also admit that the bass is easier to play. Yet another reason that they don't deserve as much credit. It may be harder to sing while playing, but as you said, not many people do this and the people who do would receieve the credit of being a singer/musician, instead of just a bass player. Problem solved. True, some bands put their bassist more in the limelight. But, these bands bassists receive more credit than bassists who are not in the forefront. Basically, you and I seem to agree that the bass is easier to play and plays less of a role in most bands. Bassists, as well as other parts of the band, receieve as much credit as they are due. Lead singers get most of the credit because lyrics have become the largest and most prominent part of songs. Similarly, bassists have dropped more and more to the background, playing less and less of a vital and prominent role. This means they deserve less credit as they play a less apparent role in the band.
Bassists are underrated

Wingnut, the point I was indicating in my argument above is that whie bassists are typically set in the back, this is not a sign of their "inferiority", but the band's wrong decision and neglect for them in the recording studio and in concert. The bass is neither inferior nor should be overshadowed by other instruments by far, oh no. And yes, as a bass player myself, I can concur with the statement that the bass is an easier instrument, in some ways, than the electric guitar. While the bass has less notes and doesnt require to hold 2 at a time to make a chord, it is heavier, bulkier, and harder to play at the same time while singing. I admire artists like Sting and Paul McCartney for pulling off such talents. Have you ever listened to a songs from a band who puts their bassist up in front with their lead guitarist? Popular bands like Franz Ferdidnand, The Shins, and Van Morisson have, to name a few. Their songs combine the "mind-blowing" noises of the electric guitar, with the pleasant, mellow sounds of the bass, giving the song the best of both worlds.
Bassists are underrated

Your opening argument proves my point. You can't hear the bassline in any popular song. You claim it ties the song together, but this is coming from presumably a bassist. Any casual music would hardly notice. This proves that bassists are right where they belong. The other performers play more critical parts of the song and are therefore more recognized. Your argument admits this. Also, why should we have this great reverence for bassists? Their instrument is exponentially less complicated than a regular guitar. You have less strings and typically slower and more repetitive chords and riffs. The very nature of playing the bass is to be in the background.
Bassists are underrated

Let's take a look at a typical rock band: Drummer Guitarist Singer Bassist In some cases, the lead guitarist also takes on the role of singer, and a rhythm guitar is thrown into the mix. With the drummer located in the back, and the lead guitarist/singer located in front, and rhythm guitar next to him to his lead guitar...that's an awful lot of treble, yet the music seems to mesh and blend together without an issue. And why might that be? There he is, located in the back of the stage, carrying a heavier, longer, bulkier instrument, is the superglue of the band, the low, hypnotic strum...the bassist. ...of course, you can't hear him over the tinny twangs of the guitarists and the drummer pounding cymbals with his sticks. You might not even be able to see him, or even be able to pick out his name. Many consumers today are only interested in the headbanging, deafening guitar solos that make up so many songs, or the bubblegum, sugar coated lyrics that boy bands use to seduce many a teenage girl. Can even an experienced bassist pick out the bassline in one of those songs? Maybe, if they turn the treble all the way down, and listen really, really hard.
Bassists are underrated

Again, you admit that the bass is generally easier to play and is less critical in songs. That said, you agree that bassists belong in the back. They deserve less credit because they play an easier instrument. Your arguments work against themselves. You argue for the potential of the bass, while at the same time agreeing that it is easier and less important. I don't see how you can argue that it is a simpler instrument, is less necessary, and less present in songs, but at the same time claim that it deserves more credit and we should see more of it. For an instrument that is admitedly easier to play and is less vital for songs to sound good, the bass has just the right amount of credit it deserves.
Nothing in science is ever proven

C1: What I have done is demonstrated that according to its own logic, the contention cannot be considered true. Thus, I have proven that it should be considered false. As for my existence, I can prove it. My evidence is that I perceive reality, therefore I am conscious, therefore I exist. As for proving your existence, my evidence is that you have communicated information to me, proving that you exist. Even if you were a computer program (which would be irrelevant to consider under current circumstances, as there is no evidence of this), you would still exist, albeit not as a human being. C2: If theories can only be proven false, but not true, then this means that one can be certain of a falsehood. My opponent may be tempted to say that certainty for truths is the only thing that can not be achieved. But what about the truth that something is false? We are certain of the falsehood, and thus are certain about the truth about the false hood, and are certain about a truth. P1: You believe that a proposition should be considered true until proven false. By this logic, we must consider every possibility to be true at the same time, even those that contradict each other. Since contradictions can not exist in reality, this thought process is necessarily wrong. As for a view of the practical consequences, let us apply your view to the judicial system. You would have everyone, from the moment of their birth, be considered guilty until proven innocent. In a judicial system, this is injustice. In science, it is pseudoscience. P2: Scientific theory is never going to be 'proven false'. What it will do is change as new knowledge is accumulated. But it will still be based on the foundation that is past and present knowledge. If a theory is not perfect, that does not make it totally incorrect, but rather incomplete. An example would be the atomic model, which in its transition from Dalton, Rutherford, Bohr, and Schrodinger's models changed drastically, but each correction worked not to destroy its predecessor, but rather to build on it.
Nothing in science is ever proven

Hi. I'm Justin. I'll be representing the negative side of this argument. (Or Con) I will be arguing that nothing in science is ever proven. My opponent's position, while quite fascinating and actually certainly thought-provoking, has not done something. It hasn't proven my position wrong. Yes. Scientific theory applies even to itself. NOTHING is ever scientifically proven. Your and my existence as of right now isn't scientifically proven, and can't be. Therefore, the fact that it can't be proven, ALSO can't be proven. My first argument is this: 1. Scientific theory is true until it isn't. It's just what it is. Theory. Until something IS proven by science, which the theory states is impossible, then we must assume it is true. Just like other theories out there, we may assume they're true due to supporting evidence (in this case, the fact that scientific theory has never been proven false), but it in no way guarantees it is true. However, it is the most logical conclusion until it is proven otherwise, due to past results. Which brings me to argument two. 2. Scientific theory still stands. As a theory, it hasn't been proven false yet. Therefore, we may still assume it to be true. So long as the theory stands, and it's own application has helped support it to this day, then my position will stand. Nothing in science is ever proven. For these reasons I strongly urge an affirmative ballot at the end of this round. Thank you.
Nothing in science is ever proven

The dominant philosophy of scientific knowledge is that nothing is ever proven, and claims can only be considered false vs. less false. I will present the con argument, my opponent will present pro. I will be adding new arguments as I continue, but I will open with this one: C1. All claims must apply to themselves If the claim that nothing is ever proven is true, then it, by its own logic, must be regarded as inconclusive. Essentially, if one can not know anything, they can not know that they can not know, and thus can not regard this as a guiding principle of knowledge.
Nothing in science is ever proven

First, I will quickly and concisely refute my opponent's final arguments, as he has graciously allowed me to do. Although he dropped most of my arguments from the last speech I gave, my opponent stated that, in order for something to be considered possible, it must have a reasonable claim to the truth. However, how are we to determine what is reasonable and what is not? When we are looking for the source to something, we must consider ALL possibilities. Now, scientists are quite sure in laws such as gravity. (Hence the term "law") Thus, we are not searching for another answer to the question "Why does everything hit the floor?". But, we can never keep our minds closed to the possibility of another theory being correct. Gravity, like I mentioned, could apply to every object except one. "Truth" in science, is absolute. We would leave no room for doubt. However, with all the other theories (and clarifications of theories) out there, we simply can not brand a hypothesis as true through science. I throw out random, and admittedly unrealistic, hypotheses, not because I believe in them. I am just showing how science can not prove any given hypothesis, even if it is true. Examples such as gravity, evolution, cells, atoms... etc. are still theories. Are we sure they exist beyond any reasonable doubt? Yes. Or at least some form of them. However, you can not use repeated testing to prove that it applies to all things, will always apply to all things, and has always applied to all things. That is why it is said that "Science can't prove anything" in the first place. We have to assume it's true because no one can prove it false. However, I can not guarantee that one day we will not prove something true, which is what keeps me from proving the theory true in the first place. Scientific application operates under the assumption that scientific theories and laws are true, not the guarantee. I encourage you to remember that any theory could be proven wrong one day. Any theory, including scientific theory itself, which is why we assume it true, but can't prove it to be thus. For these reasons, I urge a Pro ballot. Thank you for your time. I want to thank my opponent for such a great debate. This has been a fun and brain-flexing journey for me, and I assume the same for most who read this. It was fun, and I am now better learned and more confident in my stance on scientific theory. I hope to debate you in the future, JorgeLucas.