BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Vitro Fertilization

Couples who undergo IVF usually cannot conceive naturally but when undergoing IVF the chances of having more than one child is very likely. Most of the time this isn't intentional, doctors typically choose several healthy embryos to implant in hopes of one being viable and surviving. This can also be life threatening not only to the embryo but the mother as well. The survival chance of multiple embryos surviving and developing into a healthy fetus is low and if all the fetus are healthy whats to say that the mother can survive a procedure of this magnitude in carrying their child to term.
In Vitro Fertilization

Some of the basic benefits of In vitro fertilization, Is that it allows those incapable of having a family at a chance to have one, also women who are single and cannot reproduce by themselves. This process avoids birth defects and ensures a better chance of embryo survival. This procedure can be used for those who have cancer and wish to later have a chance at children and also mean with a low sperm count or women with a hostile uterus, Ovulation disorders, Blocked or damaged Fallopian tubes, Premature failure of ovaries, and endometriosis.
In Vitro Fertilization

IVF creates more legal issues, 1st we have custody of a child now we have the custody of an embryo, in cases of a divorce which parent gets the embryo if neither individual can reproduce natural. Another legal issue that arises in IVF is the case of a father seeking legal right to the sperm donated for this procedure done on a single mother. Creating more difficult decisions for the court to decide who has rights, before the child is even born. Overall the IVF process is unethical, it is taking god"s natural gift and making it a scientific process that allows the individual(s) to produce the perfect child. Yes, it can give those who undergo this process a chance at a family but at the expense of others embryos either being terminated or used for researched is seen as inhuman worse than the treatment of animal testing is some people"s eyes. Yes, this testing eradicates genetic disorders from the population but is it okay? To play god in a day in age where everything that is man-made can possibly lead to our own extinction. Instead of letting natural selection and evolution create a better human being. These artificially made fetuses stunt the process of evolution, possibly leading to the creating of new threatening diseases, just like humans evolve so can pathogens and viruses. Making the world better equipped to exterminate the population with new and diverse ways of medicine, disease are bound to become more complex on worldwide scale.
Abortion is a woman's decision

I have indeed been taking this debate very seriously. In fact, I'm offended that you would suggest I wasn't. Raising the sanity waterline on this site is always in my interest. "His argument was very simple. That abortion is not, after all, a pragmatic decision, but a philosophical one. Of course, to the thousands of women who are facing this decision every day, it is very much a pragmatic issue. Like I said in the introduction, men can voice an opinion. My opponent is quite free to philosophise on fetusus, because this will make no difference to the decisions made. He has no power over the decisions and this is OK. That's why I didn't bother to argue these points. They don't challenge the resolution. "Nope! See, if it is a pragmatic issue then philosophy still applies to it. Philosophy can determine whether or not someone can disconnect wires someone else needs to survive. Since men and women are capable of philosophizing, then my argument still holds completely. And I dearly hope that you aren't trying to prove the resolution by saying that men technically can't force all women not to have abortion. Because those would not remotely be related to the case at hand. They would be semantics, and absurd ones indeed since you have already argued your actual position in the previous round. Semantic users do not win debates. "There was only one issue raised by my opponent that was relevant: the possibility that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder then it is a crime and can be legislated against. This would constitute men having power over abortion decisions. So I did argue this point, and indeed demonstrated that abortion is not murder even if a fetus is granted the right to live. "Sorry, my argument was that philosophy can determine rights and that men are also capable of knowing philosophy. This applies to any conceivable situation. .. not just whether fetuses should be considered humans, but whether they should have a right to live in any given context. Simply because I gave an analogy of whether fetuses were humans does not make that my main argument. And another semantic! Now, you claim that only if abortion is proven to be truly murder do men have a say, because that's when they can technically legislate against it. However, you say in the first round that I have to "prove that men should have some power over the decision (or rights) to abort. " In other words, men should have influence over the decision of whether abortion is wrong, which contradicts your new position directly. Semantics fail.
Abortion is a woman's decision

Thanks for taking this debate so seriously, Mouthwash.My opponent had the burden of proof to show that men should have a role in abortion decisions. He has failed, of course.His argument was very simple. That abortion is not, after all, a pragmatic decision, but a philosophical one. Of course, to the thousands of women who are facing this decision every day, it is very much a pragmatic issue. Like I said in the introduction, men can voice an opinion. My opponent is quite free to philosophise on fetusus, because this will make no difference to the decisions made. He has no power over the decisions and this is OK. That's why I didn't bother to argue these points. They don't challenge the resolution.There was only one issue raised by my opponent that was relevant: the possibility that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder then it is a crime and can be legislated against. This would constitute men having power over abortion decisions. So I did argue this point, and indeed demonstrated that abortion is not murder even if a fetus is granted the right to live.So yeah. Nothing, really, from my opponent. We can't blame him too much. After all, abortion really is a woman's decision. Accept it.
Abortion is a woman's decision

Hello Mouthwash.Tens of thousands of Americans need a kidney transplant [1]. Most of them won't get one, and will die as a consequence. The rest of us can live with just one kidney. But it would be obscene to suggest that we should hand one over, let alone legislate for such a thing.Those Americans have a right to life, of course. But they don't have a right to take from another human to sustain life.Of course, pregnancy is different from the kidney scenario because the fetus is already there. It's already taking from its mother. It's as if you woke up and found yourself in a hospital bed hooked up to a man without kidneys. And he would die if they unhooked you. Do you have the right to unhook yourself, even so? I suggest that you do. You might choose not to, out of the kindness of you heart, but it could hardly be murder if you did.1. http://www.emedicinehealth.com...
Abortion is a woman's decision

To clarify, I will be arguing that men should have equal influence in judging the practice of abortion. Let us say that the fetus has no inherent right to live. If it could be established that fetuses are simply clumps of cells with no moral hurdles in killing them, then abortion would obviously be justified. It would be no different than clipping a fingernail. However, if it could be established that fetuses are human and have the right to live just as much as a fully-grown adult, then abortion would be murder. Both men and women can learn and understand philosophy, and therefore either a man or a woman could theoretically validate either position. Therefore, men should have a say in abortion. The end. Thanks for playing!
Abortion is a woman's decision

I never had an intense opinion about abortion until I came on this site. But now, everywhere I look, there's men yapping about abortion. Get your faces out of it! This is a matter for women, because women are the ones who get pregnant and bear children.The rules of this debate are as follows.My opponent has the burden of proof. He has to prove that men should have some power over the decision (or rights) to abort.Of course, nobody can stop men from voicing an opinion. But honestly, the carry on here about abortion! I can't help but feel that this is all about men wanting to control the process of pregnancy. You can't. So sorry.
Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball.

This is one of my first debates, too, so we have the great fortune of being able to explore this debating medium together, without worry of using a "professional or proper format. " Although the terms you have proffered are vague and ambiguous, I accept them given that my understanding of what I must do to win is correct, as I outline it below To win this debate, I will have to show that hockey is not a "better" sport than baseball. For one sport to be considered "better" than the other, you have stipulated two points that must be met: hockey must be "better" as a "spectator sport," and better in the sense that hockey "requires more skills (both mentally and physically) for the athletes. " Because these two points do not correspond to each other in any way that we can measure, I will take it for granted that I will only have to show that one of these claims is false. If I prove that baseball requires as much or more skill than hockey, then I will have won. And if I prove that baseball is as good or better a spectator sport, then I will have won.
Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball.

The clash of the titans: A United States past time versus a Canadian made sport. This is my first debate, to please bear with me if it is not professional or in proper format. I will be learning a I go. I intend on defending the primarily North American sport of hockey in saying that it is a "better" sport than baseball. It has been a long winded argument amongst my friends and I wish to see how the internet feels about it. I know better is a subjective term, but I wish to break down the argument into a few major points that are both important to the players and the viewers of the sport. These points are: Average televised game length, average time of action, games per season, importance of each game per season, skills required to play, difficulty scoring, and type of team play. Knowing that calling a sport "better" is changed constantly by context but in general, I feel these are important characteristics that are contained in each sport and I would like to defend that hockey stands to be a better spectator sport and requires more skills (both mentally and physically) for the athletes. Thank you in advance to my debater and I wish to keep this as mature and information based as possible.
multiple fire drills at school do more good than harm

"Anyway, it is better for the well being of the students and faculty to have multiple fire drills. As we probably all know, people forget things (unless you forgot you can forget). Students -shuffling about their busy lives- have all the more reason to forget things and one of those things would most likely be the actions necessary to escape a burning building. Using the definition from dictionary.reference.com, we can assume than multiple means 3 or more. Thus the subject of this debate is:" For the students and faculty it is not because once they have done 3 fire drills they assume all the other ones are just drills again and therefore no one takes it seriously and everyone is just going somewhere else then the designated spot and not doing anything. "If a fire drill was not practiced at all, or barely once or twice, faculty are putting the students' lives in danger. The students might not become farmiliar with the process and run about in circles in a utterly confused state. Also, we know that people have a habit of screaming during a disaster. Screaming is a natural occurence that signals danger. Screaming also is incredibly loud (by nature) and most definitely drowns out other conversations such as instructions to get out of a burning building. Some schools are quite lazy and have resorted to posting small, rather inconspicuous signs at random points around the campus. We can guess that one would not stop to read this fine print but would much rather enjoy themselves by screaming their heads off. AS stated by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 187 people die each year from being trapped in a burning building in California alone, with a total of over 2,800 nationwide. As we know, school children spend a great deal of their time at school (schoolchildren, duh) and a large sum of those deaths are of schoolchildren. This sad fact could have been prevented if those children had had many fire drills that farmiliarized them with the evacuation process." Did I say put the fire drills back to back? No, because you can have one in the beginning of the year one in the middle and one in the end keeping people in check while not giving them to much slack. Those deaths happen for other reasons than not having more than 3 fire drills. My opponent never stated why those people just HOW. As for the screaming at most schools faculty keep the students in check and I assume that if someone went crazily screaming that he/ she would be helped by their friends. Now for all the stats my opponent showed WHY did those people died. We know they died in a fire but was it because of lack of fire drills or more likely other reasons. If a car race dies in a race is it because of lack of driving or because the other guy swerved and he hit him and died. Fire drills are not the cause of those deaths what if it was because the students had so many fire drills they didn't take it seriously and that's why they died in the fire. Thanks,
multiple fire drills at school do more good than harm

Oh. Anyway, it is better for the well being of the students and faculty to have multiple fire drills. As we probably all know, people forget things (unless you forgot you can forget). Students -shuffling about their busy lives- have all the more reason to forget things and one of those things would most likely be the actions necessary to escape a burning building. Using the definition from dictionary.reference.com, we can assume than multiple means 3 or more. Thus the subject of this debate is: 3 or more fire drills at schools do more Good than Harm. If a fire drill was not practiced at all, or barely once or twice, faculty are putting the students' lives in danger. The students might not become farmiliar with the process and run about in circles in a utterly confused state. Also, we know that people have a habit of screaming during a disaster. Screaming is a natural occurence that signals danger. Screaming also is incredibly loud (by nature) and most definitely drowns out other conversations such as instructions to get out of a burning building. Some schools are quite lazy and have resorted to posting small, rather inconspicuous signs at random points around the campus. We can guess that one would not stop to read this fine print but would much rather enjoy themselves by screaming their heads off. AS stated by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 187 people die each year from being trapped in a burning building in California alone, with a total of over 2,800 nationwide. As we know, school children spend a great deal of their time at school (schoolchildren, duh) and a large sum of those deaths are of schoolchildren. This sad fact could have been prevented if those children had had many fire drills that farmiliarized them with the evacuation process. Dear friend, I cannot possibly see as to how your heart would be so cruel to deny those hundreds of children their life. These are a tiny fraction of the news headlines for horrible school fire related deaths::: 83 Children Killed In School Fire In Kumbakonam 3 Children Killed In Summit High School Fire Grieved At Funeral At Least 81 Children Are Killed In Fire at Private School in India 3 Children Killed in Illinois Fire 19 Ugandan school children Killed in Fire 5 Children Killed in Memphis School Fire Three Children Killed in Fire Cause by Candle Jewish Standard (school) Piecing Together a Memorial to Children Killed in Fire Two Children Killed in Fire; school superintendant Roger Allen says among the dozens of people trying to... 78 Children Die as a Fire Sweeps School Woman, Two children killed in Olustee fire; principal came by and said the school house was on fire... At least 65 children Killed as Fire tears though Junior High School 28 children killed in Russian School Fire Now please try to enjoy the rest of your day, and suggest fire drills for your school. (readers)
multiple fire drills at school do more good than harm

Main Entry: fire drill Function: noun Date: circa 1890 : a practice drill in extinguishing fires or in the conduct and manner of exit in case of fire In which case my opponents argument has no validity to it. This means that when the fire alarm rings and all the students have to be accounted for the first time is ok, because it is a new process. However the multiple time signify after about 2 drills when people start walking and not taking it seriously is when it does more HARM THAN GOOD. WHich if you look on top he proves my point when he says "This would mean that the school most likely would be ruined and that cost money so that means that it would do more HARM than good. " Thank you,
multiple fire drills at school do more good than harm

<<<"For the students and faculty it is not because once they have done 3 fire drills they assume all the other ones are just drills again and therefore no one takes it seriously and everyone is just going somewhere else then the designated spot and not doing anything.">>> Sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say. <<<"Did I say put the fire drills back to back? No, because you can have one in the beginning of the year one in the middle and one in the end keeping people in check while not giving them to much slack.">>> I was merely giving an example about the consequences of not having regular fire drills. Two drills is the highest number covered by the term "less than multiple" so it is clear that you suggest having at the most two drills. No matter how far apart you space them, they would either be very close together -leaving moths of idleness- or very far apart leaving a large space between them. <<<"Now for all the stats my opponent showed WHY did those people died. We know they died in a fire but was it because of lack of fire drills or more likely other reasons. If a car race dies in a race is it because of lack of driving or because the other guy swerved and he hit him and died. Fire drills are not the cause of those deaths what if it was because the students had so many fire drills they didn't take it seriously and that's why they died in the fire.">>> You have not stated any OTHER reasons that could lead to that many deaths in a school fire so I can only assume my reason is correct. I cannot think of many other likely reasons for those childrens;' deaths other than panicking and screaming and all the things you learn not to do during regular fire drills. Thanks. Now onto my own points. 1_ Most fire drills are put at random intervals throughout the year to show students and teachers that fires can strike at any time. This is important because sometimes kids are at different places around the campus during a fire drill. If there even were one or two fire drills, they would not become farmiliar with evacuating at different places around the campus. For Example, Happy Elementary School could have two fire drills during homeroom period when all the little kiddies are sitting in their chairs. The first time they would learn how to evacuate from that room, and where to line up by following others. The sencond time the kids are at lunch and they all leave the cafeteria and head for the field. Technically thatwould be classified as under-multiple. But what if a fire happened during assembly, or fourth period/class. What would they do then? They kids would run around and they probably wouldn't know where the nearest exit was to safety. By having multiple fire drills, they farmiliarize themselves with different areas of the campus and what to do if that disaster where to occur. I have to go to Spanish 2 class now, bye!
Racists claim a skin color as a benefit.

Actually, you are the one that decided this was personal, so I will respond in order to your concerns. My case is a statement, one which you, personally took issue with, which is why this debate continues. Thank you, because the human race needs to have this debate. Racism is determined by skin tone, and if you declare your skin tone as different, then you suppose yourself to be special, in one way or another, either more oppressed, or more guilty, or more better, correct. Yes, that is how identifying yourself or others by race works. Id you check the box with your politically correct race next to it, you most likely are hoping it will benefit you, or excuse your guilt as a lighter tone then all the other races. I'm plaid, what color are you? Is it only OK to answer the governments questionaires? So be it.
Racists claim a skin color as a benefit.

I would like to point out that this is a personal debate and you have also failed to respond to my points. Everybody is allowed to think what they want but if it is racist or offensive they should keep it to themselves. Genetics show that skin color is not chosen neither is gender or sexuality, and it can be very unethical to offend somebody as they are different. A large statement supporting this at the tip of the iceberg is "Separate but Equal" now "Different by equal" I would like also to ask you to please calm down and keep on the debate. Unable to respond to my arguments and making invalid points, you should vote for con! Have a good day! ~Trip
Racists claim a skin color as a benefit.

First off were is the case? Secondly you have no resolution so this plan won't resolve anything and has no solvency. Con will win as this is not a personal debate but about rights. Skin Color may pay a part in Racists eyes but to the public no. Skin color is not good nor bad. Your argument is invalid and you have no resolution, showing that This debate is already over As you have no case, therefor nothing for con to debate so you forfeit.