BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

But what happens to those extra embryos that aren't used in the IVF procedure? During this, multiple embryos are implanted in the women's uterus, but not all that were fertilized in the lab are. Those are now future lives that cannot be used. Some say that human life starts at fertilization, and if that is true, those extra embryos are just discarded, throwing away lives. These major ethical problems is where a large amount of the controversy about IVF comes from.
IVF Debate

IVF, although it is extremely costly, but current 15 states mandate some kind IVF insurance under certain requirements, according to attainIVF.com. IVF is considered a last resort by most medical professional, and for couples who truly want a child the cost may be worth it. In reference to the argument that babies should not be conceived in a test tube, as I previously stated IVF is a last resort procedure for couples who have tried to conceive naturally, with fertility drugs, and even with artificial insemination, and IVF is never a first choice, it is a last resort for couples who truly want to carry their own child. Some of the other problems that arise from IVF, such as too many embryos being implanted resulting in an unsafe number of fetuses, are rare and do not happen when the couple uses a qualified medical professional and have educated themselves extensively on the issues.
IVF Debate

Why might it be problematic for couples who have trouble conceiving naturally to undergo IVF In Vitro Fertilization is extremely costly. For each round of this induced pregnancy, it costs $12,000. When young couples find out that they cannot conceive a baby on their own, they may not be open to this option because of the high amount of money they'd have to come up with. It's not plausible for new families. Another thing why couples wouldn't want to go though with IVF is the ethical sides of the procedure. You fertilized your egg with a sperm in a lab, and then have in implanted into the women's uterus. This baby isn't conceived naturally and is often times called "the test tube baby". It's not right to have a child that was created in a dish.
IVF Debate

In Vitro Fertilization is a type of insemination that offers previously infertile couples the opportunity to conceive a child that is genetically theirs and for the woman to carry the baby. With surrogacy (another woman carrying the child) or adoption , neither of those factors would be possible. A couple may turn to IVF if the man has a low sperm count or low sperm motility, the woman has issues with her uterus, Fallopian tubes, or ovulation cycles, or if either partner has unexplained issues. IVF allows for testing of genetic abnormalities for higher chances of a healthy baby, and increases the chances of pregnancy.
IVF Debate

Legal issues usually come up when couples get divorced. With the left over eggs, the argument of who gets them is the problem. One person may want the eggs and freeze them, one may want them destroyed. Each person technically have rights over the embryos since their sperm and their egg are a part of it. They fight over the rights because there are no laws in states on who gets the embryos. Although in vitro fertilization is a last resort for some couples who cannot concieve on their own, it's completely unethical. Making a baby in a lab, getting to choose which embryo you get, and just throwing away the extras is not what having a child is all about.
IVF Debate

IVF begins with the woman being given injections to help mature her eggs and regulate her ovulation cycle. Then the eggs are extracted just before they emerge from the follicles in the ovaries. This must be done at exactly the right time, or the egg will have a lower chance of forming an embryo. Then, sperm is collected from the male donor. The sperm and egg are combined in a laboratory under the correct conditions for the embryo to grow. After a time, usually about 3-5 days after fertilization, the embryos are implanted in the woman's uterus. Usually 4 embryos are implanted to increase the chances one will survive. In conclusion, I feel that IVF, although it should be considered a last resort, is a viable way for couples to concieve and carry a baby that is genetically theirs or using donor eggs or sperm. Although there may be ethical issues in some circles, the pros of this debate far outweigh the cons.
THW: ban public breastfeeding

On the idea that it could ruin kids" innocence: Well it won"t for exactly that reason- the kids are innocent. If someone considers seeing someone"s breasts (in a non-sexual context) to be inappropriate in some way, then their innocence has already been ruined. No one"s innocence will be ruined, because they will either be oblivious to it or their innocence has already been ruined. On the idea that it will give men sexual pleasure: We allow all kinds of things in public that give men sexual pleasure- everything from beer to cars to music is advertised to men using scantily-clad women with large breasts, and this is done in public. Society has no problem with presenting material which has the potential to sexually arouse not in public. In any case, all of this is consensual- if someone is breastfeeding in public and someone else is watching them, the latter party is apparently okay with seeing breasts in public- they are choosing to watch them. If they did not want to see breasts, they can look away. Point 3 wasn"t really coherent enough to offer a rebuttal. What"s so weird about it? On waiting until they get home: Someone may be working full time or have some other commitment to honour and so this is not an option for them. Also, babies are known to scream like hell if they don"t get what they want- telling it to wait isn"t going to work, and it will become distresssed in the meantime and will make a lot of noise, which is a bigger problem for everyone present than the possibility of seeing a breast. My points: 1) It is possible to breastfeed on public without the risk of a breast being seen- many parents choose to cover up with a scarf or blanket. 2) Even if a breast were to be seen, it"s really not a big deal- breasts are seen all the time in adverts, and will only sexually arouse those who wish to be sexually aroused by them. 3) Babies cannot be asked to wait- they will scream and cause more problems than the potential to see a breast would cause. 4) Banning public breastfeeding may push some parents to bottle-feed, which is widely considered to be worse for the baby.
Is it right for America to have Nuclear Weapons

Pro's burden is to defend his arguments, Con's to deconstruct them per standard rules of BoP.Pro's argument is essentially this, that the U.S. having nuclear weapons is good because they can use those weapons as leverage to keep irresponsible countries from assuming nuclear power and protecting countries without nuclear weapons. There are a few problems with these sentiments.(i) Pro is presupposing that the U.S. will act responsible with those nuclear weapons. You can't just theorize into existence responsible States. Furthermore seeing as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, I see no reason to give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt concerning whether they'd choose to use those weapons responsibly and Pro has as of yet provided no reason for us to think so.(ii) Pro is also ignoring the fact that all nuclear weapons were created equal so one country having access to a large number of them doesn't put them in a necessarily superior strategic position relative to countries with only a few nuclear weapons. One can be sure that if Japan or any of its allies had access to any nuclear weapons in 1945, that the U.S. would not have been able to use them on it. Therefore Pro needs to show why other countries can't just use the same strategy against the U.S. to force it into aligning with their interests. Empirical evidence gives credence to this idea given the general lack of U.S. military action against North Korea which is owed almost entirely to its possession of nukes.
Rap is just as good if not better than rock music

For example: Disturbed's "Down with the Sickness" Heck, all I ever to listen to that song for is to hear the "Oooooo-ah-ah-ah" b-s sound, and then I turn of my mp3 player. I'd fisrt like to say its your choice whether you turn it off or change the song anywho as i said before rap and rock fall under alot of the same negativities, but you fail to mention almost little to none of the positives for rap music, unlike my arguements saying that rock is better You only came up with one example clearly not enough compared to all the other billions of rock songs out there some rap songs like songs by rihanna and chris brown are very poetic in their own way like rihanna's song standing ovvation (i think) anyway its beautiful if you listen to the words Because she is basically talking about a boy cheating on her wanting her back but she wont take them back, but their are other rap songs that i cannot come up with right now at the top of my head that are basically talking all about sex and getting into someone elses pants... like the song li-li-li-li-li-li-lick you like a lollipop... okay first gross if your not "excited" now im not saying rock doesn't do the same thing for example like Addicted by saving abel or Pain by three days grace but other songs like numb by linkin park or kristy are you doing okay? by the offspring are amazing songs because they are talking about expiriences or dreams or feelings that are poetic in the most out-of-this-world way but when you put the music with it its so much more better there is no real debate over this topic its all of a matter of opinion really and the way you interpert these songs really if you just listen to the words of a random rock and a randon rap song you would see the difference
Rap is just as good if not better than rock music

First I will refute your arguments. "Rap is very vulgar and basically all their songs is talking about getting into someone's pants. .. although some rap is very poetic, most rap you cant understand a word their saying because they slur their words and say it so fast that you don't care what their saying you just like the beat. " Sike! Well, you are partially correct. Look, some songs are just meant to be dance to at a party and forgotten in like 3 months. It would seem like those are most raps because people that don't really listen to rap only hear those songs. "Now rock yes some songs are talking about getting into someone's pants and they do sometimes scream in the microphone so you cant understand a word their saying either. " You know what I think about rock: "you don't care what their saying you just like the beat. " For example: Disturbed's "Down with the Sickness" Heck, all I ever to listen to that song for is to hear the "Oooooo-ah-ah-ah" b-s sound, and then I turn of my mp3 player. "they use basically symbolism they say one thing but it means something that you wouldn't even think of. " Same as rap music. "singer is meaning and its more poetic than rap" Ok, we'll figure this out. "Now rap and rock fall under the same negativity's but when it comes to the positives rock is way better than rap! " Try again. Now for my argument. With rap music, there is more liberty as to what you can do. Rap can use and modify any type of musical background to suit its own purposes. Rap music is even allowed to manipulate rock music to suit it's own purposes. And what's more, when these musics are merged with actual rap beats and lyrics, you have to admit that it makes an amazing piece of art. Having this variety is what makes rap music, uhhh, come in quite a variety. It's brought forth many options and has created a powerful range possibilities. Now, as far as this debate goes, I win not only if rap is BETTER than rock, but if it is EQUAL. So if our fellow audience decides that rap and rock are tied, the victory still goes to me. Now, I know I lack a warrant in this debate so far, but I will yield my warrants to the next round. I would appreciate it if you provided some kind of evidence for your debate as well.
Rap is just as good if not better than rock music

first rap and rock, country, blue grass ect. they are all equal because no matter what category it falls under the songs are still talking about sex drugs love hate ect... IN my opinion rap isn't better than rock. Rap is very vulgar and basically all their songs is talking about getting into someone's pants... although some rap is very poetic, most rap you cant understand a word their saying because they slur their words and say it so fast that you don't care what their saying you just like the beat. Now rock yes some songs are talking about getting into someone's pants and they do sometimes scream in the microphone so you cant understand a word their saying either. But most rock you can understand what the singer is meaning and its more poetic than rap because (I don't know the literary word for this) but they use basically symbolism they say one thing but it means something that you wouldn't even think of. When it comes to rock it's more meaningful in their words and isn't as bad as rap when its comes to the vulgar. Now rap and rock fall under the same negativity's but when it comes to the positives rock is way better than rap!
Rap is just as good if not better than rock music

I am defending rap music. People keep saying "Oh rap music is just uhn uhn; lets sell drugs and do women and stuff." And say rock music is quality music. Yet, rock music is just a bunch of "ADFAFAFDADFAFAFADFADFAFA!!!!! WOOOOIIII! SATAN HELLFIRE KILL AND BURN" Oh heck yeah, I'm dissing rock music. Ooh, I am gonna get some com-ments.
There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Greetings Instigator. I appreciate the opportunity to debate this topic as it is near and dear to my heart. I am new to this but I'll see if I can wing it. I would first start off by saying I believe the Bible is literally true and 100% accurate. It says that God made the earth in 6 days and I believe that's what he did. You say there's no evidence for a young earth but I would disagree in using the "idea" of the geologic column. I believe the only way to explain fossils and the many layers of strata is in the context of Noah's worldwide flood. There have been millions of animals die since the flood but there aren't any fossils because they weren't buried quickly enough to be fossilized. Also looking at the time it takes to fossilize, I think you'll find that it doesn't take millions of years as the evolutionist would have you think. There have been fossilized dogs found in trees, a fossilized cowboy foot inside of a cowboy boot that dated back to the 1940's. I would say that based on these facts you could conclude that the Bible is true and these aspects point to a younger earth than evolution would have you believe. I'll stop there so you aren't crammed with different arguments and we can take it one aspect at a time. Thanks again, and God bless.
Disney World is better then Universal Studios

Thank You for your reponce. Nobody can say Disney World does not have a great number of verity of rides, shows and theme parks for both kids and adult. Such as, 1) There are tons of ride for both kids and adults such as Mission: Space, Big Thunder Mountain, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Rocking Roller Coaster, Expedition Everest, Test Track, and Tower of Terror for the older crowd. Peter Pan, Finding Nemo ride, Buzz Light year, and Tom Sawyer Island for the little ones. 2) There are also tons of shows like Philharmagic, Lion King Show, Fantasmic, Voyage of the Little Mermaid, and Disney's Beauty and the Beast. 3) Walt Disney World has at least five different themes in each the parks. There parks include Magic Kingdom, Epcot, MGM, and Animal Kingdom. Inside each theme park include different themes includeing: Magic Kingdom: Main Street U. S. A, Adventureland, Frontierland, Liberty Square, Fantasyland, Mickey's Toontown Fair, and Tomorrowland. Animal Kingdom: Discover Island, Camp Minnie- Mikey, Africa, Rafiki's Planet Watch, Asia, and DinoLand U. S. A. . MGM: Hollywood Boulevard, Echo Lake, Streets of America, Mickey Avenue, Animation Courtyard, and Sunset Boulevard. Walt Disney World is a great family theme park for everyone Kids and Adult. Universal Studios is really a great theme park but when it comes down to it Walt Disney World provides many more themes and fun for everyone in your family.
Disney World is better then Universal Studios

First, it must be taken into consideration that my opponent has provided ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support the assertion that Disney World is better. Second, the movies are not to be taken into consideration unless we are referring to the themes of the rides (which quite frankly, Universal Studios has Disney world beat on, but more on that later). With those two points being taken into consideration, let us compare Disney World to Universal Studios. 1)Universal Studios is both adult and child oriented, ergo, the kiddies won't be the only ones guaranteed to have a good time when visiting universal. US (Universal Studios) has regularly hosts a wide variety of live actions shows themed from the 1920s generation films to the 2000 generation films. Mind you, there's nothing cartoonish in these shows, hence making them adult oriented. Furthermore, the same can be said for the rides, when we look back to rides focused on such hit films like Back to the Future, E.T, Terminator, Earthquake (well, sort of), King Kong, and many more. 2) Universal Studios has more variety. Let us take "Islands of Adventure into consideration. Islands of Adventure is additional theme parked grouped in Universal Studios that features 6 different islands. In other words, six miniature theme parks. These parks as listed as Marvel Super Hero island (an island that is marvel oriented, includes Marvel Comic oriented shows, has the world famous Spider-Man ride[ http://www.youtube.com... ], the Hulk roller coaster [ http://www.youtube.com... ] and many more), Toon Lagoon island ( a park focused on characters such as Popeye and Dudley do right, not to mention shows and activities which even your toddlers can enjoy, and popeye themed river rapids ride, and a Dudley do right log flumed ride), Jurassic Park island (Jurassic park oriented and with shows and rides just as suggested by the above), The Lost continent island ( the unique thing about this island is not only the museams, but the world famou duel inverted roller coaster know as the dueling dragons; check this out: http://www.youtube.com... ), Seus landing island (Dr Seus oriented park with Dr Seus oriented rides and shows), and the in development "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (which will be focused on Harry Potter both in rides and shows). Now if you compare this to Disney, there's hardly any variety. All there is to look at is disney characters as well as any other entertainment which would mostly entertain Disney's typical target audience ( ages 12 and below). These are my contentions and I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
The Instigator

Please note that both the Note 8 and the S8 / S8 plus have a marketing gimmick going on with it's "infinity display" which is in actuality , simply smaller top / bottom bezels, not a complete screen that stretches to the end . Apple , hence has a higher screen to body ratio with it's X , that has no bezels , save for the notch , which has to be there . As for the Edge displays on Samsung , that is'nt innovation , it's a big party trick , if I've ever seen one.. I mean , seriously?! An extra bit of screen flowing over the edge , and that justifies a large price bump . Nope , not innovation. The X cannot be called a souped up version , unlike the 7 and 8. It brings a lot for the price . It's got it's fair share of innovation too , with face iD . The face iD is a bigger piece of innovation than the iris scanner , simply due to the security enhancements and the work going into it. As for Microsoft , they got kicked out of the smartphone market literally FOR their lack of innovation and finish. I believe that it should'nt even be brought up in this . The surface is clunky in some ways , too. Im not going to try to seem an Apple fan-boy , for I agree that their have been breaches in it's innovation with the Apple Pencil. But Apple were there first , in most things that had to do with smartphones, especially near the beginning of that era. They're a Nokia that never died , albeit even more innovative . A camera that adapts to the light is new , but well , it's not something for everyone . The difference is noticeable , but is it that great ? Samsung is consistently getting better . They are taking tiny leaps to improve , not innovate . They need innovations that make a bigger impact . Face iD ? It changed the way we think of security . It created a stir , and with it's hitches , that's were something needs to improve , not renew . This is where Apple plays especially well. As for that last sentence , please get your facts checked . I've seen videos and articles about the "loss of magic " and how they will simply lead up to the next big thing : the iPhone X . ( in both sales AND consumer appeal ). Also the 2nd last sentence of your argument , I agree partially : The S8 doesnt have stylus problems like the Apple Pencil . Why ? Well , that's because it does'nt come with an S pen , so how could it? 😉
The Instigator

The iPhone 7 was a souped up version of the iPhone 6s. The 8 was a souped up version of the 7s. The X is basically iPhone 7 with a full screen and Face ID. Prior to its release, Samsung had a retina scan and a almost full screen. Samsung phones have had major improvements as they've had a pen, and now they have the S9 coming out, with a camera that adjusts to the light. Apple has been losing it's magic since the 7, but Samsung has had consistently better products. Also, what about Microsoft? Microsoft Surfaces have so many advantages over the iPad, even the iPad Pro. With the iPad Pro, you have to plug a pen in to charge it, and now there's this huge thing sticking out of your charger port. There's none of that with the Surface or with the S8. Apple has been slowly losing its magic, but nobody has noticed it.
The Instigator

I think that Apple is not losing its magic . Prior to the release of the IPhone X , I agree , Apple were slowing down their innovation with the iPhone 7 appearing with not as much of a big leap from the 6 as we would have liked. But I believe that this magic-loss has been negated by the 1st bezel-less iPhone: the iPhone X. It brings in the face iD , which is about 2 times as secure as Touch ID.
Bashar al-assad should stay in power.

I thank Kenneth_Stokes for this important and interesting topic, which I was planning to add before I saw this thread in the challenging-period section. I'm really looking forward for this debate, but I'm only using this as an acceptance round that introduces my position. My argument is that Bashar Al-Assad shouldn't stay in the power, and I will be supporting this by showing how his absence would be better than his current presence and his hypothetical rule in the future. Nevertheless, I'm only considering him worse than the FSA; an independent army I do not fully support to every last detail, although I I think it is the only hope for a better Syria at this critical stage. In addition to this, I will show that it is almost impossible to keep the Syrian president in power and restore peace to the aforementioned nation. My only pre-emption is that Jabhat al-Nosra shouldn't be considered a part of the FSA, given that they both are different groups. If my challenger has any objections to that, I'll gladly give evidence for my pre-emption within round 2. Finally, I hope this debate would be really interesting and informative to readers who are confused about the situation in Syria, and to the Syrians who are worried about the future of their country.