BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minecraft is the greatest game in the world!

The argument that any single game in the world is absolute bs. I, like about a billion games more than I do Minecraft, however, I would never say that any of those games are the worlds best, in fact, I would never say anything is the worlds best unless I personally have tried every single one of them. And unless you or I can say you have tried every game in the world, no conclusion can ever be reached by this debate.
In Vitro Fertilization

When a couple are deciding to have a child by IVF, they are taking responsibility for the eggs and embryos that are produced along with treatement. If a couple should split for some reason, there is usually a giant legal battle that ensues over who gets to keep the eggs and embryos since, scientifically speaking, both parents have a claim on them. The courts won't settle it because it's considered a 'civil issue' that must be worked out between the parents. It's gotten so crazy that scientists in the UK are creating a new system of IVF called three way parenthood to "prevent defective mtDNA from being passed from mother to child, scientists in the U.K. are planning to offer a "three parent" fertility procedure." (http://www.the-scientist.com...). This is supposed to help stop certain genetic diseases from being contracted from parent to baby and still raises the question of who owns what after the baby is born. Because of the inability for middle class parents to be ableto have the expensive procedure of IVF, becasue of the fact that now parents can pick the genes they want to create their 'perfect child' and because there are so many medical risks that come with trying IVF, IVF shouldn't be allowed to be continuing as a practice because it causes more harm than good to both the parents and the unborn child.
In Vitro Fertilization

There is approximately 1 in 4 IVF pregnancies that results in multiple births, and twins/ triplets have a higher risk of premature and miscarriage. Twin to twin transfusion syndrome can cause deaths and other health problems due to the sharing of a placenta. If this becomes a major threat to the mother or the twins, the mother can undergo a "fetal reduction", which requires the abortion of one fetus. (http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...) The general procedure that IVF clinics follow: Women will develop multiple follicles in the ovaries by injecting them with medications. The doctor will monitor the follicles for 1-3 days after the blood and ultrasound testing, and are needed to have at least 3 follicles to develop. Once the follices have matured, the IVF clinics will then remove the eggs from the follicles. The sperm and eggs are fertilized in the lab, then the embryo is propagated in the lab for 2-6 days before transporting it into the womans uterus. (http://www.advancedfertility.com...) In Vitro Fertilization is a very beneficial procedure for women/ couples who are unable to conceive a child due to health related problems. Once the inception of pregnancy have begun, and the couples no longer wish to have any more children, they are able to donate their embryos to other infertile couples and help them start their own family, or donate it to stem cell research, utilizing it to understand the growth of diseases and finding cures for diseases such as cancer and parkinsons disease. There are definitely ethical controveries that come into play, but that's completely objective. Understanding the positive impact IVF's offer and the joy it conveys shouldn't be disregarded, and this reproductive technology should be offered to any woman or couples who are unable to produce a child.
In Vitro Fertilization

With the issue of multiple births, it arises from the fact that "multiple embryos are created and transferred into the woman, more of them successfully implant than is safe or desired" and that the ' IVF process requires the mother (or the woman donating the eggs) to undergo a process of hormonal stimulation to produce multiple eggs for fertilization. There are associated risks such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and complications from the egg retrieval procedure. Also, because of the higher likelihood of multiple births, using IVF means higher rates of pregnancy complications too." ( http://www.aleteia.org...). Because IVF requires that multiple eggs are implanted into the woman, in the theory that only one of them should take, it causes the problem that more than one takes at a time creating twins and triplets. Even though pregnancy complications and birth defects are a theoretical problem in every birth, because of the many eggs implanted, there is a much higher risk of harm to the mother or child that can lead to recless disregard for human life in the theory of science. Women are purposefully putting themselves in danger and their unborn child, in an effort to have a child that is more likely to have birth defects than a child concieved normally.
In Vitro Fertilization

Not all unused embryos are destroyed/ thrown away. If a woman truly wants to keep the baby, she can pay $40 ad infinitum a month to keep the embryos frozen in a lab. (http://www.parenting.com...) A myriad of embryos are being stored in fertility clinics, so the embryos arent completely destroyed once the woman concevies a child. Couples usually have at least 5 years to keep the embryo frozen in a lab, and must decide the embryos fate after 5 years. (https://www.legalzoom.com...) Couples can donate their embryos to other infertile couples, or to stem cell research. When couples are content with their family, and dont feel right throwing away their embryo, they are allowed to to donate it to other infertile couples and give them a chance at birth. Although giving up your embryo is difficult, Bohn, an embryo donor states that "she has no regrets, and today, no sadness". (http://www.parenting.com...) Couples can also donate to embryonic stem cell research to help doctors understand the growth of diseases and understand their development thus attempting to find cures for diseases like the parkinsons disease, cancer etc. (http://usliberals.about.com...)
In Vitro Fertilization

If it's not a problem that the embryos are being created by genetic screening, then it should be that over "an estimated 500,000 embryos in cryopreservation awaiting final disposition. This might include future transfer (either to the mother or to another person seeking pregnancy through "embryo adoption"), scientific research, or destruction." ( http://www.aleteia.org...). That's a lot of unused embryos that are being left untreated, unused, and a lot of potential children that are going to be destroyed more than likely because a person would rather choose what child they get. That doesn't sound like something that's very ethically or finically safe considering how much the couple is spending to become artificially pregnant. Not to mention that " the euphemism means your doctor selects one or more healthy developing fetuses for destruction, leaving the remaining fetuses to develop (hopefully) to full term." (http://www.aleteia.org...). Why should the doctor allow what should live and what shouldn't? Isn't the point of IVF to have a child of your choice because you are so desperate to have one? Why do you need a doctor to get rid of fetuses that are potentially "bad" if you aren't allowed to see or choose for yourself?
In Vitro Fertilization

Note: THIS ARGUMENT BOX IS FOR ROUND 2 AND ROUND 3 ROUND 2 The prospect of conceiving a child using their own eggs is higher for younger women, 40% in their late 20's, 30% in their late 30's etc. The IVF procedure is a basic process: 1.) The doctor will monitor the amount of eggs produced by inhibiting the secretion of FSH, LH, Estrogen, and progesterone, 2.) accumulate the eggs 3.) accumulate the sperm 4.) wash the eggs out of the follicle using a micropipette, and combine the eggs with the sperm in a sterile condition in a shallow dish, and incubated at 37 degrees until the next day. 5.) place the eggs inside the uterus. (Reference, WebMD Medical. "In VItro Fertilization (IVF) Facts, Success Rates, Multiple Births, What to Expect." WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. ) ROUND 3 Genetic screening of embryos are beneficial; it allows couples to detect any possible disease the embryo might have and avoid that problem. It's not a harmful procedure, and the woman can undergo blood and ultrasound test to determine the low or high risks. Chromosomal disorders like trisomy 21 or down syndrome in children are increasing everyday, and having a genetic screening of embryos at their disposal is advantageous. ( "Health Matters Blog." Brattleboro Memorial Hospital. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. ) If a disease or disorder in the embryo is apparent, the couples have the choice to either proceed with the implantation, or utilize another embryo without the genetic disease.
In Vitro Fertilization

IVF uses all of the latest technology to be able to synthetically create children. This could lead to genetic screening, or the ability to pick and choose which genetics and factors a couple wants for their child but aren't you supposed to love your child no matter what? Not to mention that a child that is born of IVF can be ridiculed by others since they weren't conceived naturally and there have been multiple studies that suggest that this can lead to depression and other mental disorders. Why should a person synthetically create a child that is born to their specifications like a robot, and then be ridiculed for something that they aren't in control of?
In Vitro Fertilization

There are a lot of basic benefits of IVF. There's a good amount of people that are unable to conceive a child, and IVF will allow them to do so. Not only does IVF allow couples to have a child, but single women and same sex couples as well. IVF will also provide them with a sperm donor if needed. If a parent or a woman's IVF cycle is unsuccessful, the embryos from other people may be donated and be used to enable the embryo recipients to have a child. ("The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF - CREATE Fertility." CREATE Fertility. N.p., 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.) People undergo IVF for several reasons; some women have unexplained infertility, and are unable to get pregnant despite testing normal on their fertility test. Some men have an impaired sperm production or function; the males sperm movement might be too slow or the sperm size might be atypical, which can make the sperm hard to fertilize the egg.
In Vitro Fertilization

People that are considered normal, in this sense that means an average pay grade, then IVF isn't a viable option for them because the "exact total of a single IVF cycle varies, but may cost more than $12,000 - $17,000" (http://www.nlm.nih.gov...) which is a lot of money for something that only works "41 - 43% for women under age 35 "33 - 36% for women age 35 - 37 "23 - 27% for women ages 38 - 40 "13 - 18% for women age 41 and over (http://www.nlm.nih.gov...). This is a costly procedure that doesn't even work 50% of the time. Not to mention the birth defects that the child could be born with that the parents of a "normal" child also more than likely won't be able to fix due to monetary problems.
In Vitro Fertilization

There are a lot of basic benefits of IVF. There's a good amount of people that are unable to conceive a child, and IVF will allow them to do so. Not only does IVF allow couples to have a child, but single women and same sex couples as well. IVF will also provide them with a sperm donor if needed. If a parent or a woman's IVF cycle is unsuccessful, the embryos from other people may be donated and be used to enable the embryo recipients to have a child. People undergo IVF for several reasons; some women have unexplained infertility, and are unable to get pregnant despite testing normal on their fertility test. Some men have an impaired sperm production or function; the males sperm movement might be too slow or the sperm size might be atypical, which can make the sperm hard to fertilize the egg.
Democracy vs Autocracy.

Autocracies are necessary before democracies. My opponent has no comment on this important fact.Nor has he rebutted to any of my arguments.1. VisionariesEconomic growth is brought by autocracies only to a point. Same applies to communism, same applies to democracies, same applies to all ideologies.That economic growth point by autocracies is higher than any democracies will be able to achieve.Deomcracies and autocracies can have both good and bad leaders. Look at the British kingdom. It still has a monarchy, which has served the country well, but it also has a Parliament, and both have experienced equal amounts of growth (proportionally) under both leaderships.2. FreedomsI'm not sacrificing any freedoms. Just because a country is an autocracy doesn't mean you should automatically think of it as being ruled by an evil dicator. North Korea is an example of a failed dictatorship. Angola, Zimbabwe, and the Congo are examples of failed democracies. Autocracies have as much speech freedom as democracies-- and not even democracies ensure freedom of speech. There's an undeniable stigma around certain topics that it's almost restrictive.3. Developing CountriesMy opponent didn't even extend his own argument!My point remains strong that autocracies are necessary before democracies.My arguments and extensions, which my opponent didn't respond to either.A. Need for Autocracy Need for autocracy to provide a fundamental basis for all types of government is undeniable. B. Change in Leadership Changes in leadership in autocracies are possible, like democracies. C. Faster Action Autocracies make faster decisions. To prevent a coup d'etat, the leader makes decisions in the best interests of the people. These are the reasons why CON takes the debate.
Democracy vs Autocracy.

Firstly,I don't accept that "Autocracy is the necessary prerequisite for democracy". It"s not the nature of a country"s political system that determines the course of its economic development, but the intelligence of the policies it implements. The ascent of India shows clearly that even the most tumultuous of democracies can post growth rates as lofty as any dictatorship. Now,let me answer your views one by one:- 1)VISIONARIES:-I haven't mentioned anywhere that all the presidents are good and all the rulers are bad.But the point is if a president is bad in a democratic country,there are opposition parties which will strongly oppose them whereas in case of bad rulers in the absence of the opposition party they are not opposed by anyone and they can ruin the country and people. 2)FREEDOMS:- In this case,I am surprised that the CON can compromise with the freedoms of the people.Also,you haven't mentioned anything about freedoms in the extensions as you wrote "I'll cover this more in my extensions".You have just mentioned that the economic growth increases rapidly.Its as people would act like puppets for the ruler without raising your voice even if you are right. Also, a country cannot be run by just looking at one point that is economic growth.Even if the country develops many times but even after such development the people do not get their freedoms I think its of no use. And I am not saying that the change in the leadership is infrequent but its risky. Modern Korea shows that dictators may be able to bring about economic development " but only to a point. Then political openness becomes crucial to keep that growth story going. Korea therefore provides important lessons for the rest of the emerging world, especially China. Lastly, you are telling about faster actions.As opinions of the people is not taken in the autocracy so definitely there would be faster actions.But if the views of the people are not taken in account then sometimes it might happen that the thing unwilling by the people is been implemented. So,I would end adding that the country cannot be made autocratic just on the grounds of the economic development.There are many issues that need to be taken into account.
Democracy vs Autocracy.

First of all the assumption made in the first statement is "If the autocrat is a god-like figure" is a big question mark.And badly misguided strong leaders can cause major damage. Mao"s Great Leap Forward is one prominent and terrible example, but so too are Castro"s forcing Cuba into a centrally planned government-controlled inefficient economy, or Iran"s mullah-led government that created monopolies controlled by religious foundations and other groups. Democracies help control the range of outcomes. Visionaries in democracies can accomplish much sometimes, as did Manmohan Singh when Finance Minister of India from 1991-1996, Margaret Thatcher after she became Prime Minister of Britain in 1979, Ronald Reagan as US president during the 1980s, and Japan"s leaders after World War II. However, their accomplishments are usually constrained by due process that includes legislative, judicial, and interest group constraints. On the other hand, bad leaders in democracies are also constrained, not only by due process, but also in addition by the reporting of a free competitive press and television, and nowadays too by a competitive Internet. Also,how the people of the country be happy if they are not given the freedom of speech and the leaders ruling them are not of their choice.In addition,in the absence of the opposition party and the freedom of press there no restriction on the government from anywhere .In this case, there are more chances that the leader may take advantage of the opportunity and may get corrupted.So,not only the economic part but also the satisfaction of the people is a must in the country. So,for the developing countries the risk of shifting to the autocracy is unacceptable thing as it might shiver the whole economy of the country.
Democracy vs Autocracy.

With a proper leader, an autocracy is one of the best forms of government a country can have.I quote from DDO:In terms of potential:If the autocrat is a god-like figure, he knows what the people want, what the people need, he grants freedom of everything, he makes good policies, and he is never tiring, then yes. It is efficient and avoid rite rule. A herd of people can do the same. We can assume that this is a herd of reasonable people. Except they have to all get together and vote and argue with each other, and they may not always be right.That was purely hypothetical. In fact, in most modern cases, representative democracies do much better in terms of human happiness and achievement and happiness. But it is also important to note that these same countries are already filthy rich when they started to become democratic. Undeveloped nations NEED a strong hand instead of unregulated "mob rule" in a competitive world like this. Russia, China, Libya, would never have gotten so much better than before if it weren't for ruthless and reasonable authoritarian rule. Hopefully, when these societies ripe, they become more democratic---Compared with the number of developed countries and underdeveloped countries, autocracies for developing countries is what we NEED RIGHT NOW, and then, if and only then, can democracies take over.Undeniably, autocracies pave the way for democracies.If we look in the past we can see all kinds of exapmles.China, Russia, and Germany went through a bigger growth in 5 years than America in 40 years.Since autocracies (from monarchies to dictatorships) are foundations for government self-rule, the are inarguably more important.Now my opponent will have to prove to us why we don't need autocracies for blossoming countries and why mob rule is much more effective (MY GOD LOOK AT THE IDIOTS VOTING FOR TRUMP. AMERICA WILL BURN).
Democracy vs Autocracy.

Democracy gives the freedom of speech to every individual to raise their voice against the wrongs.Also,they have the right to choose their own government whereas autocracy takes away this right from the people. Secondly,in autocracy decision is been taken by an individual while in democracy decision is been taken by group of people elected by the citizen of the country. Also,leadership is taken over from generation to generation whereas in democracy it is not so.There are chances that the government in autocracy can cheat people as there is no opposition party whereas this risk reduces in democracy.
Are police to brutal

I accept. Anyways a cop is suppose to protect everyday citizens from harms such as gangs, murderers, rapists, etc. And are not monsters as you describe them. In fact, the cops that get out of line, as i call them rogue cops. Should have never been working as a police officer in the first place. Also i need a source stating that cops kill 5000 people each year. How do we know they are Innocent ? How do we know if the cops killed them on self defense ?
Are police to brutal

I think that cops today are way to brutal and it is stupid. I have done some research and over 5000 people get killed a year in cop fights because stupid cops. not saying all cops are stupid but some just are. Fat cops just say I would rather shoot them instead of running after them HAHA XD <_> why is life so hard. because of cops but if we didn't have cops we would all be in a living hell. So cops are way to brutal and I hate that because it just sucks. please stop using guns and dogs and swat!
DDO Song Battles: A Jifpop09 series

!! !! (0)(0)(0)Players willl have to also write a short random synopsis on the song, 1000 characters long. It can be random, but it wont be factored into the debate. &^5^--)*6%I will be accepting challengers in the comments, so be sure to post a youtube video with your comment. hi'sdhi[sahi[ghi[gu9-]fu90fg9-u=fg=90gay80du=90a. http://www.youtube.com...Round 2: Funny Round 3: Free ChoiceRound 4: Classic RockRound 5: Free ChoiceAcceptance video can not be used, and you may not use the same song or band as your opponent
DDO Song Battles: A Jifpop09 series

Ha, good one. I almost used that particular song, but I see a lot of people get bashed on for overplaying it. Anyways, next song is "November Rain" by Guns and Roses. Considered one of the best classic rock songs of all time by many, it is a power ballad sung by Axl Rose, and in my opinion, has a awesome guitar solo. I was very conflicted on whether I would choose this or "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zeppelin.http://www.youtube.com...
DDO Song Battles: A Jifpop09 series

Since my opponent has posted a song about the singer going crazy, I felt like I should do the same to make it easier to judge. Here it is in all it's glory: http://www.youtube.com...;This song has been met with tremendous critical acclaim, being listed in the Book of Guiness World Records in 2002 as the top British single of all time. There have also been grammy nominations, named best British single of 1952-77, and numerous other accolades.The song itself has six distinct sections that explore new musical motifs and tell a different story - overall, it's a great song and it is so inspiring to see someone could come up with a piece of work this great.
DDO Song Battles: A Jifpop09 series

Sorry about round 1, I thought I had to repost my acceptance video into the acceptance round, as that seemed logical. For round 2, I will elect the song Nice Guys by . This song is not only funny, it has a great message for guys who are struggling to get girlfriends. In terms of views, it has 50 million which trumps my opponent's video and is definitely more funny. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com...;
DDO Song Battles: A Jifpop09 series

Well, my opponent has ignored the ruling that the acceptance video can not be used, so I ask the audience not to count it. The game actually starts round 2.Funny----------------- http://www.youtube.com...This song is "Amish Paradise", and it was created by Weird Al Yankovic, a famous parody singer of the 80's and 90's. The song parodies "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio, with guest star L.V. The song has 20 million views on youtube, and is Weird Al's Second most popular song on youtube after "White and Nerdy". I had actually debated whether I would use that song, but I decided that it has been overplayed, while this song might seem new and fresh to listeners.