BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

The price of IVF treatments is known to be high, but what treatment isn't? It is possible to undergo this treatment without becoming buried in debt by applying for health insurance to give patients leeway with payments. IVF gives couples a choice to use certain fertility drugs to increase their chances and also includes certain procedures to prevent complications. For example Diathermy is a heat source used to destroy some of the tiny cysts that develop within the ovaries, increasing chances of fertility while also protecting the mother. A team of researchers from National Tsing Hua University and the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan have developed a technique to more effectively grow and screen embryos prior to implantation, causing the detection of any genetic mutations to be able to be seen and treated . The main goal of this procedure is to give a couple a chance that they would never have on their own. Although there are dangers within this treatment, there are also many devices and treatments that can help along the way to improve chances while not endangering the health of the mother or the fetus.
IVF Debate

Of course it would be a great thing for couples that are having problems conceiving naturally to still have the chance to produce offspring. That it not the problem here. What is the problem is the potential troubles that come with infertile couples attempting the IVF procedure. One issue for this can be cost. IVF can get quite pricey, and this price tag increases quite a bit if the couple is found to be completely infertile (Neuman). Each cycle costs around $12,400, and many patients do require more than. In addition, there is a chance of ovarian hyper stimulation and pelvic infection after each cycle (Infertility: Miracle Babies).
IVF Debate

Some of the benefits of undergoing IVF treatments would include being able to help women who are unable to conceive on their own, whether it is due to the blockage or damage of their fallopian tubes or low egg count. This allows for the possibility of the production of a fetus to increase and for a specific outcome of the fetus to be achieved. People undergo IVF in order to still be able to conceive a fetus through fertility drugs due to disabilities whether within the male sperm or female eggs. Also this would be helpful if either parent were to have a disease that prevents the production of a fetus. This treatment is known to be one of the only ways and most effective way to help infertile couples conceive.
IVF Debate

Genetic screening may be in place to prevent certain diseases, that is true. However, this genetic screening does not fix my aforementioned issues, as those are actual pregnancy risks and not chronic diseases. In addition, it is easy to chalk all of my evidence up to "It will be fixed in the future," but the fact of the matter is that these are current issues happening NOW. Moving on, there is also a problem involving the legal ownership of the embryos. Oxfordjournals.org says that in many situations there is no legislation in place when it comes to who gets the embryos in a breakup. Currently the procedure involves both the mother and the father signing a document explaining what will become of the embryos in the event of a breakup, but this document is currently in no way enforceable. In conclusion, there are too many issues surrounding IVF for it to continue as a procedure for the mass markets. You suggest several times that in due time scientists will solve these problems and many more, so I ask: Why not let them? Why must we have our current couples be guinea pigs for a procedure that is not even close to perfection? IVF in its current form is too risky and still quite unregulated. Let's fix these problems before more harm is produced.
IVF Debate

Yes there are several risks that may arise from this treatment, but the technology for IVF is continue to improve year after year. PGD or Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is used for genetic testing the embryos before transferring the healthiest one to the woman's uterus. PGD has many benefits prior to IVF. According to the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, this can clearly benefit the couple who carry a gene that would put their child at risk for having a serious medical condition. For example, if both female and male are carriers of a recessive disease like cystic fibrosis, their child that is conceived naturally would have a 25% chance of having that disease. However, by having IVF and PGD, they can have normal embryos transferred so that there is no chance of being at risk of cystic fibrosis. Another ethical issue that you stated, is how the babies themselves could be harmed during the process, but this can be processed through genetic screening to detect any abnormalities during the pregnancy. This allows for doctors to do everything in their power to prevent future complications within the pregnancy including if the child needs assisted breathing. With the issue of multiple births, there is always the option of adoption or transferring the embryos safely where they can be stored for research or other future uses. The parents need to understand the side effects and the risk and become prepared on what can happen, just incase those certain issue arise. It may be a long process and maybe even difficult, but in the end, when the parent has that child in their hands, it will be worth it, and to reiterate are able to give those excess embryos away to help others feel that same way too or help research expand for future generations to come.
IVF Debate

Although you do argue that IVF is a "way for medical advancement" and not "a way to waste potential human lives," the fact of the matter still is that potential human lives are being put to waste. Whether or not that is the end goal is irrelevant at the moment. However, moving on there is a whole other slew of problems that are needing to be addressed regarding IVF. This method of mass implanting embryos and hoping that at least one survives, while at the same time wishing that the rest don't manifest seems a bit hypocritical. But let's ignore that. What happens when not only one embryo lives through the treatment, but two? Three or four, even? According to oneatatime.org, 1 in 6 IVF pregnancies result in multiple births. This is absurdly high when compared to natural birth rates of 1 in 80. Multiple births due to IVF also lead to a multitude of other issues regarding the health of the mother and the children. Risks to the mother include: -A higher chance of early and late miscarriages -20% of mothers suffer induced high blood pressure -The risk of pre-eclampsia is raised to 30% There are also other issues that affect the babies themselves, such as the fact that 8% or twins need assisted breathing, and how the overall risk of death is higher during the first year of life for twins (6.4 times more likely within 28 days of birth!) All of this isn't even taking into account the increased financial burden. A JAMA Pediatrics study conducted suggests that the hospital bill raises from $2,730 for singletons to $8,993 for twins.
IVF Debate

Going back to what I said in my previous argument, I am arguing that the IVF procedure is a way for medical advancement, not a way to waste potential human lives. Thinking about it in a sense where scientists are able to learn from past procedures that failed and eventually get to the place where future procedures will eventually be 100% effective. IVF success rates have never mattered more according to the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. According to the AFCC in 2015, the live birth success rate is about 58% compared to the US average which is 40% due to successful IVF treatments, which are as of this year higher by about 5%. This rate will only just increase as we discover more ways to improve the procedure for couples who are facing infertility. There is a choice for couples who do face excess embryos as you mentioned, you could store them for future use for couples, this would cause the lives to not be lost, and at the same time give couples a baby. By being more open minded to the overall process and the main goal being worked towards, you should be able to see that being pro IVF is the way to go based on the increasing successful rates.
IVF Debate

Though you do address the fact that a sacrifice for IVF is involved, it is massively understated. According to CTFertility.com, when excess embryos are produced you can either use them in the future, store them at a high cost, or just plain discard them. IVF News states that between 1991 and 2005, over 2 million embryonic lives were lost. 109,469 children were born through this procedure. One might question if one live child birth is worth the 18 embryonic lives that were given for this (1:18 ratio for surviving embryos). According to the same source, only 5.1% of all embryos resulted in a live birth. Are you arguing that is it worth creating and subsequently destroying all of these potential human lives just for the chance at producing a child for infertile couples in a world already burdened by overpopulation?
IVF Debate

Although there are cases where health insurance doesn't fully cover procedures such as IVF, there are possible loans that are given to couples that are involved. There is always a way around the system that can make the overall process easier and lessen the stress levels for couples. The suffering caused by possible genetic diseases can be decreased by the use of technology through screening the embryos before placing them in the uterus. The new possibilities would do exactly that, advance our knowledge of IVF treatments, developing ways to improve the likelihood for the positive outcome and to be able to decrease the chances of any harmful genetic mutations. Coming from a scientific stand point, the main goal of this procedure is to give couples a life they want, not to play the role of God. The 'sacrifice' of the healthy embryo is not being put to waste, this advancement is actually increasing the chances of healthy implantation within the uterus of the mother. Advancements in this case are a positive thing working towards the main goal of reaching 100% chance of fertility through IVF treatments in the future through technology and new developments.
IVF Debate

I do agree with your first statement. What treatment is not expensive? Luckily, we do have health insurance, which you have also mentioned. The problem however, is that very few insurance companies actually cover these treatments, as they are not required to! (Advancedfertility.com). Moving on from that topic, however, is the question of scientific advancement of the technology. Who knows what new possibilities the advancement of IVF treatments may bring? Currently you are able to pick the gender of the future child. What will the advancements to the science change? Some may argue that the line is currently very gray between designing every aspect of a baby and "Playing God". Another recent advancement is three way In Vitro Fertilization, or the creation of offspring using the DNA of three people. It may be the key to solving particular disease disorders, but this involves the sacrifice of a healthy embryo. As BBC health puts it, "You haven't cured a disease if you've eliminated someone." Who has the authority to make the call to alter dramatically, or even fully eliminate the life of a developing embryo?
Should torture be used on terrorists.

HUMAN RIGHTS NO. 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.FIFTH AMANDMANT https://www.law.cornell.edu... One can remain silent during the interrogation INNOCENT CASEIf someone is innocent why should they be tortured. If it was you you would sure want to be treated like a human being.WELL TRAINEDIf someone actually is a terrorist he is very likely well trained and have a strong drive to not talk be it good or bad (mostly bad)But my point is that it would aconplish nothing in some cases.WHAT YOU SAIDYou pointed out how it would be convenient but not how it would be legal and or etichly correct. Ye lets beet prisoners up and lets start disregarding human rights.END STATMENTSuch practices are unlawful and ethically incorrect.
Multi-Culturism

"Ah, This is where you attempt to misconstrue my arguments. I didn't Say it was because but Rather Coincided. Each Nation Mention had a Stable Economy, Peaceful Government, and Multicultural society. Is that Really Coincidental" Yes, you are right, it isn't not coincidental. If you read my argument, it clearly says that these nations are multi cultural because they are accepting of other cultures, non-hostile to other cultures and have a stable economy as to attract other cultures. Notice in your list of places where multiculturalism was RESTRICTED and OPPOSED, multiculturism was not ABSENT, only RESTRICTED and OPPOSED. If multi-culturism was not present in these situations there would be no other cultures to RESTRICT and OPPOSES . If there were no Jews in Nazi-Germany then there would be no Jews to exterminate. These situation you have supplied us are just more examples of multi-culturism's destructiveness. I find it funny you mentioned the religion thing because if you read the entirety of my argument, I used the religion example to support my argument. "To the Contrary, I've provided overwhelming evidence to why MultiCulturalism is Good, Along with Various societies that Practised Racial segregation" Yes, thank you for providing me with this extra fire-power . "Con, you Brushed Off almost everything I said and Provided to you, with little actual refutation. Please provide new and Relevant points to your argument, I shouldn't have to tell you." Actually if you read my argument I did provide refute your argument, you just " brushed off everything I said." To the part about me not having enough evidence I say: 1. I did make new points in my second argument. Did you not read the part about religious wars. Before refuting my argument it would probably help you if you read my arguments. 2. I should't have to make any new points now that you've explained why multi-culturalism is harmful to society for me. In conclusion, my opponent "brushed" my arguments off then accused me off "brushing his arguments off."
Multi-Culturism

"Unfortunately, your entire argument is a fallacy.' Lol, I feel like Phoenix Wright would Say something like that xD. Why is my entire Argument a Fallacy, pray tell? "those nations you mentioned, they are not peaceful, open minded and financially stable because they are culturally diverse, they are culturally diverse because they are more peaceful towards other cultures , more open-minded towards other cultures and financially developed enough to allow multi-culturism to thrive." Ah, This is where you attempt to misconstrue my arguments. I didn't Say it was because but Rather Coincided. Each Nation Mention had a Stable Economy, Peaceful Government, and Multicultural society. Is that Really Coincidental. Allow me to bring up Various places in History where Multiculturalism was Restricted and Opposed. CONTENTION 1. South Africa and the Apartheid Regime They enforced the Segregation of Whites and Coloured peoples throughout the Nation, in many cruel Ways. They Had Separate Bathroom Facilities(The ones for Coloured peoples were usually non maintained and dirty), Separate Water Fountains, Coloured peoples had to ride the back of Public Transportations, and they would even divide sports stadiums into areas for Coloured people(1). Sounds like Jolly Good fun to me. CONTENTION 2. Nazi Germany They Enforced the Opposition and Genocide of the Jewish Race, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and Disabled. I don't need to mention the atrocities committed during that time, but I believe 3 words sum up my discontent. Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachua, and Treblinka(2) CONTENTION 3. All Nations against Religions Most nations at one Point or Another Have outlawed certain religions or practices. "Before I let my contender rebuttal my points, I would like to clarify that we are debating whether multi-culturism is beneficial or not towards humanity, not whether a society that forces other cultures to assimilate is better than a society that doesn't. I am not making any accusations , I just thought the argument might spring up and wanted to make it clear that argument is irrelevant." Thanks for Clarification. Overall My opponent has provided no evidence to any point in History where MultiCulturalism Hindered or damaged anything, anyone, anywhere. To the Contrary, I've provided overwhelming evidence to why MultiCulturalism is Good, Along with Various societies that Practiced Racial segregation. Con, you Brushed Off almost everything I said and Provided to you, with little actual refutation. Please provide new and Relevant points to your argument, I shouldn't have to tell you. (1)(https://www.google.ca...) (2)(https://www.google.ca...)
Multi-Culturism

Unfortunately, your entire argument is a fallacy. Those nations you mentioned, they are not peaceful, open minded and financially stable because they are culturally diverse, they are culturally diverse because they are more peaceful towards other cultures , more open-minded towards other cultures and financially developed enough to allow multi-culturism to thrive. If something is cold and damp, it is not because moss grows on it, moss grows on it because it is cold and damp. Rebuttals of your rebuttals 1. [Quebec-Texas]-Yes, I was making a joke. It is not that I consider Quebec the Canadian Texas but many people do. 2[pre-confederation] No my entire view-point is not as a result of this one incident, it was just an example of multi-culturism hindering progress 3.[ Protestant vs Catholic] Again this was just an example but there is still tensions between religion to day. Before getting to deep in this religion thing, I would like to state that religion is a part of culture and way of life, therefore by having multiple religions in close proximity, a single state or country, or governed by the same government is multi-culturism. Religious conflicts have plagued us for eternity. The crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and execution of Incas for not converting, Christian persecution of the pagans, Roman persecution of the Christians, 9/11 and ISIL are all examples of bad deeds and conflicts that resulted because of there being multiple religions, and therefore cultures. Before I let my contender rebuttal my points, I would like to clarify that we are debating whether multi-culturism is beneficial or not towards humanity, not whether a society that forces other cultures to assimilate is better than a society that doesn't. I am not making any accusations , I just thought the argument might spring up and wanted to make it clear that argument is irrelevant.
Multi-Culturism

This debate bears special significance to me as I am Canadian and Canada was founded upon values of Multi-Culturism [mostly just to get Quebec to co-operate.]. I have had a couple small discussions about this with some of my piers but never got to go to in-depth with it as it may insult someone [con of Multi-Culturism #1]. Any way, I am unsure about Multi-Culturism for the most part but have developed some negative views about it. Mostly because of the annoyance of Quebec [aka the Canadian Texas]'s desperate attempts to maintain their culture, which I can sympathize for as I would't want to lose my culture either, but the methods they use to do so, usually involve instating power to Quebec over other provinces or separating from the rest of Canada. Before I begin my opening argument I will define Multi-Culturism as 2 or more distinct cultures being in close proximity of one another, under the same government or being part of the same nation,country, domain or state etc. examples include above mentioned Canada, USA, the EU and the entire world. My primary argument entails that Multi-Culturism hinders progress. An example of this includes the constant political stalemate of pre-1867 united province of Canada which encompassed present day Ontario and Quebec.No political decisions could be made in the United Province of Canada because the English Protestants of upper Canada [Ontario] and the Catholic French of lower Canada [Quebec] refused to agree or come to a mutual understanding on virtually every issue. This stigma still exist to day and it is a little known fact that Quebec drivers tend to be more hostile to those with Ontario license plates and vice-versa.
The first amendment should be expanded to further remove religion from government

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is the text of the first amendment to the United States' constitution. However, recently, the separation of church and state, one of the fundamental building blocks of our nation, has been blurred. Many politicians in the House of Representatives and the Senate have tried, and in some cases succeeded, in passing legislation that supports religious principles. For example, during the recent Supreme Court case, where bans on gay marriage were declared to be unconstitutional, the primary argument against gay marriage was religious. People argued that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because in the certain interpretations of the Christian bible, being gay is considered a sin. Also, this problem has reared its ugly head in debates on global warming. Certain politicians have argued that since in the Christian bible, the Christian God gives man (extended to mean all humans) domain of the earth to do with it as they desire. Even presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is running on making America a more Christian country, stating that our founding fathers founded the USA as a Christian nation. In reality, they strongly rejected such a notion, as stated in article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty signed in the late 1700s, which reads as follows: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." The rest of the article has been omitted, as it is relevant to the treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by the USA and certain pirates. The whole treaty can be found here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu... My argument is that the first amendment should be expanded to disallow any religious argument from being used to support or oppose any United States legislation. While by no means the prefect amendment, an example of the extension to the amendment could be something along the lines of: "Being that there exists a separation of church and State, Congress shall make no law based with in and of religion."
The first amendment should be expanded to further remove religion from government

Given that my opponent has conceded, there really is no other option but to vote for me. To clarify my position one final time, the con is NOT saying that we should make religious laws. the con IS saying that we cannot restrict the right to make arguments - that doesn't mean we have to follow it. You are free to use whatever justifications you want to try and get a law passed - that doesnt mean we SHOULD pass the law. The distinction is clear - in both worlds, we wouldnt have religious laws, but in the pro world, we restrict freedom of speech, while in the con world, people are free to argue their positions how they want. At the end of the day, the con world is more preferable.
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

I'm going to end this debate with this. Boys should be able to play with dolls because it's their right. No one has the right to tell them they are a freak or that they are abnormal. Society is changing and I'm sure we'll see more boys playing with dolls. Gender roles are breaking down, showing little kids that they don't have to follow them. It's sad to think that someone would chide a boy for wanting a Barbie instead of an action figure. A toy is harmless. What matters is what the child will do with it. We should be encouraging kids to explore and find themselves, not try to reinforce stale, old gender roles. Thank you.