BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IB IVF Debate

Switching over to the labor part of IVF, the women who have the procedure, many seem to have trouble while giving birth to an IVF child. Many suffer from an ectopic pregnancy ("The Pros and Cons of IVF." Arizona PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.). What this means is that the embryo might travel past the uterus and plant within the Fallopian tubes, destroying the womens reproductive systems. Besides that if a baby is born, the weight and prematurity of the baby due to the higher estrogen levels than usual leads to an unhealthy baby. ("Two Sides to the Debate on IVF." NewsComAu. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.)
IB IVF Debate

People usually look at the possible repercussions when putting themselves in a situation as such. Also, (Massy-Beresford, "The Guardian", 2014) is the source where the researchers discuss checking up on the IVF children every few years to see what possible effects it has. Multiple embryo implantation occurs for an increased success rate, and the excess of embryo problem can be addressed. One could donate to other infertile couples or medical research; this allows for the excess embryos to benefit the future of others. Donating to medical research gives the embryos a status between a clump of cells and actual children, which is something that most people have problems with. It also may be able to discover things that can help save other lives, since embryo stem cells are known to have specific stem cells that can develop into any type of cell needed. Another way to deal with excess embryos is thawing without donating; the embryos "pass on naturally" and some couples hold a ceremony while they"re thawing. If the decision is hard, one could postpone the decision, or get more help from a counselor or make a list of pros and cons. ("Parenting")
IB IVF Debate

Well when the procedure is as expensive at it is, the researchers have little say and money talks. Can you prove that researches have been checking those patients because i do not see a source for any of that following information. I can see what you meant, but while providing your opinion on what policy should be, it doesn't change the what the current procedure is. the procedure that you agreed was dangerous due to multiple embryo implantation. I will agree that over time everything will become more promising and better results but at the time it is a dangerous procedure for mother and child that from the facts I would not recommend.
IB IVF Debate

Researchers wouldn't allow for the IVF process to be available if they were extremely worried about the future risks for those born children. They are continuously checking up on those that had come from IVF and finding new ways to prevent/protect the mothers and the children. The first IVF child may have been born in 1978 but studies were conducted in previous years. It's known that animal research can give insight into human effects and there had been experiments on mice; which allowed data to be collected that gives us a look into what people can expect from IVF. (Massy-Beresford, "The Guardian", 2014) Also, I never stated that a single embryo is implanted. I had said that fertility clinics should have single embryo transfer policies; meaning that some do allow for one embryo to be placed inside the uterus, if wanting to significantly decrease the chances of a multiple pregnancy. ("The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics", 2014) There have been improvements in the techniques and success rates have increased with the transferring fewer embryos, making it a more common process. (Massy-Beresford, "The Guardian", 2014) Genetic screening of embryos is beneficial. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is the removal of one or more cells from an IVF embryo to test DNA normalcy. This screens for chromosome number, so it can detect any disease that has an extra or missing chromosome. The actual chromosomal abnormalities are what cause 50% of the IVF failure implantation and 70% of miscarriages. ("PGS") Therefore IVF can be helpful in preventing miscarriages and implantation failure.
IB IVF Debate

Like i said, and thank you for supporting my argument. 35 years is fairly new and there has not been enough times to watch the full lives of these IVF born children to see what affects they show in older age. In IVF treatments, there is often more than one embryo put back into the uterus, and this leads to a higher likelihood of multiple pregnancy; around 20-30% of IVF pregnancies are multiple pregnancies. Multiple pregnancies do carry associated health risks to mother and baby: there is an increased chance of premature labor, miscarriage, stillbirth and infant health problems with multiple pregnancies. So the statement that only a single embryo is implanted is false. ("The Pros and Cons of IVF." Arizona PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.) The idea of selecting some embryos and potentially discarding others may not sit well with everybody. This raises the ethical issue that playing god shouldn't be allowed or given to a certain individual.
IB IVF Debate

The IVF system has been around for over 35 years and has created 5 million babies; meaning that this has positively impacted 5 million family lives. (Brian, "The Guardian", 2013) Although the IVF cycle may be unsuccessful, there is a possibility of something going wrong in all things that we do. IVF varies from woman to woman, and a fertility specialist can give more insight into the likelihood of success. ("The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics", 2014) The use of fewer or no drugs in natural and mild IVF cycles means small likelihood of developing side effects, along with more babies being born at full term and a higher birth weight. Fertility clinics should have single embryo transfer policies to avoid the risk of a multiple pregnancy and those that are considering the process should plan out costs and financing. There are also options for low-cost treatment, such as egg sharing. ("The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics", 2014)
IB IVF Debate

When looking at IVF of course it is seen as a positive alternative for parents, but there is no consideration for babies who are born from the IVF system. This is a fairly new system and is currently at a 25% rate of success in parents who are trying to have a baby ("The Pros and Cons of IVF." Arizona PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.) You previously mentioned why females with disorders in their reproductive system tend to seek this, well IVF has in many cases left a healthy woman with ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome ( "The Pros and Cons of IVF." Arizona PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.).
IB IVF Debate

IVF is beneficial for patients who would be unable to conceive; those with blocked tubes, a low ovarian reserve, male infertility, unexplained infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), Endometriosis, and menopause. It also helps single women and same sex couples, who want children but aren't in the optimal situation to have any, and helps with the diagnosis of fertilization problems. The ultimate advantage is achieving a successful and healthy baby. IVF is more successful than IUI and other assisted reproductive technology; its success rates have increased every single year due to the technological advances being made. ("The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics")
IB IVF Debate

In the successful cases IVF will offer an alternative solution to produce children for themselves. We are debating the IVF topic due to the facts and information we have gathered. Your last point holds validity to me because fulfilling dreams is what IVF was created for. But i will still hold to my point that due to the youth of this procedure, and the higher risk for mother and fetus, i would not risk the health and possible life of the woman that was undergoing the procedure nor us parents emotionally scarred and the guilt of producing a miscarriage or unhealthy child into this world.
Vegetarianism

I guess the problem is maybe with the way they phrase it- vegetarianism is not necessarily connected with PETA, and its not clear whether the issue is vegetarianism or legislating vegetarianism. Althogh I'm a vegetarian, I would be against a law against eating meat as unconstitutional. Yes, the animals people eat should be killed humanely, and that can be legislated, but vegetarianism should be a choice. Thank you for answering, and I don't think I really have anything to debate with you.
Vegetarianism

I don't think that is so much being against vegetarianism or those who are, but at least for me it's partially about PETA, which has not been the most peaceful organization of late. It may also be that they themselves are not vegetarian and do not feel it is the place of those who are to initialize attacks about how everyone else should be. This is not saying someone has a vendetta against vegetarianism or for that matter hate animals or approve of animal testing. It is a personal choice and not something a piece of legislation can cover or that has much to do with a person's political choices. This, together, makes it hard for any one person to make a general comment about everybody.
ISIS are not representing Islam

ISIS is inherently Islamic. The stated mission goal of ISIS, as they voiced publicly back in June, is to establish a new Islamic caliphate across the Middle East (1). Now they get this authority from the sacred texts of Islam the Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with unbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding (2). Now my opponent says " Islam rejects all forms of violence" this is a flat out lie as I have just shown chopping of the heads and fingers and killing infidels is most certainly violent. With all the quotes from the holy book my opponent has given I could list just as many (even more) that self refute and contradict. My opponent has fallen into the common trap of cherry picking the 'good' verses and saying this is Islam, I'm sorry but that won't do. Similarly and reflective of this is my opponents implementing what's known as the 'scotsmans fallacy' (3) she claims to be the final authority on what the world should view as Islamic and what is not. Now I'm sure if you asked members of ISIS who the 'true' muslims where they would say only those who are committed to their cause and everyone else is 'pretenders'. Islam is inherently violent this can be proven as we see time and time again the more extreme or fundamental a person becomes in relation to Islam the greater the likelihood of terrorism taking place. Whereas for example Jainism where the more extreme or fundamental a person becomes in relation to that religion the more likely the person is to become 'paralyzed' with fear of moving incase they accidently squash a bug (4). ISIS follows the most literalist interpretation of the Quran and he hadith they live according to sharia law and as we all know wish to implement this where ever they can this is directly Islamic. source: 1. http://www.bustle.com... 2. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... 3. http://www.logicalfallacies.info... 4. http://tarunkranti.50webs.com...
the Liberal Media

I want to make sure I clarify what exactly I mean when I say that I am pro "the Liberal media" I am not taking the stance that I support the liberal media. All I am trying to say is that I believe the media has a very liberal bias. I believe most of the media with the rare exception of say, "Fox News" is very left leaning. In result the media mainly reports the bad news about the war and and they portray Conservatism as being some sort of bad thing and Liberalism as the answer to all of your problems. I believe the 08 election is a prime example. If you look at all of the news reports about the Republican candidates the only one the media seems to favor at all is John McCain. Why? Well I am glad you asked. The answer is because McCain is the least Conservative of them all. McCain is the most Liberal of all the Candidates on the Republican ticket. And in the eyes of the Liberal media if they have to have a Republican president they want him to be as close to them as possible. I know there are some people out there saying well Ron Paul is more Liberal than McCain why don't they endorse him. I think they do not expect him to have a chance at the Whit house. They expect him to flop out in the primaries. The media would have never supported Fred Thompson or Mit Romney and if Ronald Reagan was alive today and campaigning for the White House the media definitely would not have supported him. Because to the Liberal Media true Conservatism is the enemy because it is the only sure thing that can beat them and the only thing that can stop them from getting what they want, which is a far left leaning Democrat in the White House. In this debate I wish to go head to head with anyone who believes the media has no bias. Or someone who believes that the media is more Conservative or right leaning than left. This way I can prove to my opponent and readers that the media is very, very Liberal. And that I Griffin Voorhees am right again. NOTE: I am not saying anything bad about McCain or Ron Paul. This is not a debate of who is the best Republican candidates. It is a debate of weather or not the media has a Liberal or Democratic bias. So please keep this in mind when voting. And I want my opponent to realise this too that way this debate doesn't get far off topic.
the Liberal Media

The only evidence you seem to be giving is the polls that say people (especially conservatives) think the media is liberal. Of course they do, it has been beaten into their heads by conservatives for years. People like your boy Rush like to bash the TV media for being liberal so that people distrust it. You still have yet to give a decent example of just how the media is liberal. That doesn't surprise me however because you obviously don't watch it much considering that you said this; "Unlike the idiots we have today such as Dan Rather and Peter Jennings." Now if you watched the media on a regular basis you would have known that Peter Jennings is DEAD!
the Liberal Media

I would like to start the debate by saying that the assumption that the media is liberal, is completely inaccurate. A vast majority of the major news stations in the U.S. today are in fact owned by large parent corporations. That plays right into the hands of conservatives that support big business. There is also the fact that they have to be sponsored by more big corporations. The thought that the media may be liberal goes back to the 1980's when a study showed that the journalists were slightly more liberal than conservative. This has changed over time and now in fact the journalists are economically conservative, giving them a slight libertarian leaning. This however does not translate into the media much at all. Except for extreme forms of media such as fox, broadcasting stations usually play the role of referee when it comes to politically related items. They always have analysts from both parties that had worked for previous campaigns as advisors. The idea that the media is liberal, is just played out by right wingers who want people to distrust the majority of the media and to trust fox. This is just when we are talking about the television. Most people don't even realise the conservative stranglehold on talk radio shows, liberals are almost non-existent in that area of the media. The only example that you give of the media being "liberal" is the '08 election. The only reason the media slightly favor John McCain (who is conservative) is because of his straight talk express. That thing has been going on for years, he always brings the media along with him and answers all of their questions without avoidance. That being said, John McCain might be a little more moderate than Romney, but not much. Even if he was the media is doing the republicans a huge favor by highlighting him. The head to head polls show that McCain clearly has a much better of beating the democrats than Romney does. I think a lot of people just believe what they keep hearing over and over. If there was ever a liberal bias in the media, it is gone now. I think that some people just have a personal bias and find to much easier to blame the media, than to simply accept the truth. -Thank you
Impeach Obama

President Obama has stompted upon the rights of the American people. His promises from his 2008 campaign such as his promises to close Guantonomo Bay and to stop the wiretapping policies implemented by Bush have never been fulfilled. Obama praised whistleblowers during that campaign yet never used his power to pardon heroes such as Manning, who revealed war crimes, and Snowden, who revealed the illegal spying practices of the NSA. Guantonomo still is used to house terrorism suspects and is home to attrocities such as waterboarding and force-feeding, both of which are torture by international law while Bush's mass surveilence policies have been expanded. All Obama has managed to do is further propell the United States towards authoritarianism much as his predecessor did. I therefore hold that Obama is a traitor to the nation and thus should be impeached and/or imprisoned.
Impeach Obama

I. Opponent contention on the signing of the NDAAWas perfectly legal. Congress passed it and Obama signed it. Its 100% legal for a judge to decide whether a prisoner is there legally or illegally, which actually gives the supreme justice a say in Guatanamo bay. Are there faults? Sure. Does this land him an impeachment? No. Its the GOP who wrote the law anyways.He followed the rules here. Anything else, or will you continue to maintain a negated resolution?http://armedservices.house.gov...;
Impeach Obama

Back. I appologize for the lack of an immediate response. I've been a little busy lately and don't have much time to myself or to the computer. Examples of violating the constitution? Hmmm....... Well, he signed the NDAA, which allows for the indefinite detention without trial, which contridicts the Sixth Ammendment and has also expressed approval of the spying policies of the NSA, which is under his command.
Impeach Obama

Forgive me, but all you did in R1 was state your premise. You put no actual substantiation into your premise. If I'm not mistaken, you have the BOP, and its foolish for me to take the burden, when you obviously hold it. You must give me proper reasoning on why your resolution is true, or otherwise, it is automatically negated.I had assumed, since you had no real substance in your arguments, R1 was for acceptance. I may be wrong, but I think the audience will agree that your contentions lacked weight.Until you fill even a quarter of the burder required, your resolution is automatically negated.
My argument against gay marriage is compelling and sound

Hello all voters, My opponent, kenballer, has forfeited this debate. A brief discussion about that is to be found on the comments section, and need not trouble any voters. However, I will request that someone place a vote my way, so this debate will not go down as a tie (it would help my stats, and I really feel that I made a better case. Due to technical difficulties I had to rewrite the entire thing, and I don't want that effort wasted). I thank the readers and would welcome future discussion on my style and improvements I could make. bbowhan
My argument against gay marriage is compelling and sound

Its an argument about the actual true purpose of civil marriage which involves procreation and how redefining marriage (or gay marriage) will produce immeasurable consequences onto society. However, its NOT the mainstream procreation argument heard time and time again. Some people may have already seen it in other debates I have been in. In this debate, My opponent will have to find a problem with the logic behind my argument against gay marriage and successfully explain why its not a compelling argument involving the premise and conclusion. how compelling the argument will depend on how much practical significance it has. my opponent will have to explain how my argument will have little to no practical significance. lastly, the burden of proof will be on me but this debate will not be about civil rights and the constitution or arguments for gay marriage.
Should Technology Be Allowed In School

True but with technology you have the entire world at your fingertips. Correct it's not all about the learning, but technology doesn't cause problems because of the divice called glasses. With thoses you can stay on the internet longer without hurting your eyes. Technology also has better storage then a binder. Sure that they are expensive. But you never have to buy another one ever again unless a stupid student drops it. But then they have to pay for it. The school blocks out websites that students shouldn't be on, so they can't go on games. Students cant use cellphones in class because there are still teachers that can see what their up to. You said that technology can't be in lessons, but at my school we have NWEA testing on the internet, we also have SBAC testing. Also your going off topic again, we're not talking about cyber bullying.
Should Technology Be Allowed In School

I know I may be going off topic but just because technology has more information than a textbook doesn't mean that it should be used! Yes students may prefer to have new technology at school but it's not all about learning; the effects they have on health can be quite significant. The problem is, your just thinking about the learning. Granted, learning is the primary purpose of schools, but health and socializing are important as well. Textbooks may be perceived as boring but they do have information and cost less. More importantly, as beneficial as technology is, it can drastically affect concentration levels to the extent that students writing and communication are hindered. Your just focussing on the information technology has, but really, as long as a textbook contains all the information needed, students learning is fine. How you say 'technology' makes me think that you would like a variety of different devices obtained in school ( quite an ambiguous term). With this in mind, mobile phones and other devices may be overused and used when they shouldn't be...like in class. Despite the fact that you claim games would be blocked, students may be tempted to linger on the internet doing things they shouldn't be doing. This leads to addictions and students losing focus. Additionally, students are very easily distracted and in class, their minds are somewhere else as they are constantly thinking about the internet and technology. Technology wouldn't be used in every lesson, so the ability to think in class (without technology) is imperative. Should you sacrifice concentration in class, health worries/doubts and people skills (maybe) for more technology that costs money and serves the same as books? Admittedly technology is useful and offers something different to textbooks but health wise textbooks are better; and adding to that, it can create addictions and can lead to concentration levels being affected. You cant just think about learning.Not too much technology should not be allowed at school ( excluding your computers that most schools have) as the reasons for why they're bad outweigh the reasons for why they're good. Health is very important and as for cyber bullying, you cannot take it lightly. To answer your question, I would rather be abused on the internet but thats just me. Some people might prefer to be abused in front of people so that the abuser would look bad. You can't underestimate cyber bullying, it is a big problem.