BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IVF Debate

Coming back to the musical situation I understand you're referencing the fact most development starts in the early stages of life, and therefore it would be easier for a child to adsorb a wide range of information. This however does not compare to drastically changing the genetic coding, the DNA, of a child in hopes that they would be 'appealing' to the family's desire. And to bring it up, would the parent love their child any if they had no desire to be invested in music? This is the issue with designer babies, the concept they're more love-able if they have these features the parents want. And with your follow up on twins more desired, this actually brings up a very important issue that multiple pregnancy can still lead to higher health threats to the mother or babies, as the more babies during pregnancy leads to higher chances of miscarriages that leads a family to go through the struggle of not just losing one but many even more babies. And even if couples take certain cautions to increase chance of success this doesn't resolve the issue seen with how 40-60% of IVF twins need to be transferred to neonatal care units after their birth, by comparison, only 20% of singleton IVF babies need the same level of care. And even further the risk of death around the time of birth is three to six times higher for twins and nine time higher for triplets. According to a study in 2003 it's estimated that if all IVF babies born in the UK had been singletons, the deaths of 126 babies could have been avoided Just as how Director of Multiple Births Foundation Ms Jane Denton states it, "the aim of all infertility treatment should be to have one live, healthy baby." The worrying health issues around couples and babies that undergo IVF are still a common problem, and it should be noted that it isn't just premature birth or breathing issues, but birth defects have become more common then in naturally conceived babies. Australian and US studies have shown that IVF babies have twice the risk of having major birth defects compared to natural conceived babies. Yet even further in IVF we have to question the ethical rights of IVF technology advancing, although advances in IVF were first used to prevent serious disorders in IVF babies many couples are starting to only use it for the more trivial aspect of having their own designer baby, something that goes against the idea that every human born into this world is equal and also causing questioning in those parents as a parent should love and accept their child for who they are, instead of defying this principle by trying to enhance certain traits of them to make them, their child, 'better'. IVF is a process that may have had a purpose in the beginning, but the drastic changes from supporting couple to obtain their own breathing child to one where couples feel a need to pick and choose what their child will be reflects on the negative aspect of this process. IVF had potential, the further pushes that have made it bend and form to the population that wishes to play God with their child has ruined it to something much more dangerous.
IVF Debate

Returning back to your response in round 3 abut the situation with the parents trying to get the child to be musically appreciative, these parents can actually shape their child's brain around music because children unconsciously absorb a ton of information around them in order to learn along with flexibility which plays an incredibly important role in our brain development (or decline) and in shaping our distinct personalities. So if a child is exposed to music younger then the parent could "wire" their brain a certain way. Couples with infertility often express a desire for delivering twins instead of a single child. They say; "we want kids, and all this treatment is expensive and unpleasant, so let's just have 2 kids and get it over with". When they are fully aware of the risks to the children if delivery is premature, some couples no longer prefer a multiple pregnancy. However, after full disclosure of the risks, many couples still hope for twins. Of course, they are also hoping that their children will be perfectly healthy. The psychological, social, and economic stresses involved with caring for twins is substantial, but patients often say they would welcome facing those stresses if they were so blessed. A study by the Regional Fertility Program in Calgary, for example, analyzed 1304 embryo transfers, from patients younger than 37 who were not using egg donors (choicemoms.org). If two blastocysts of a grade below 3BB were transferred, the pregnancy rate was 66 percent with a 25 percent chance of twins. The team determined that single embryo transfers in the study achieved equivalent pregnancy rates while significantly reducing the multiple pregnancy rate. Thus, it was recommended that one blastocyst with a grade of 3BB or better produces an acceptable pregnancy rate. If patients who did not want multiple births did this treatment then their needs would be met. Responding to Round 4, the issue with unused embryos brings up the question, "When does life start"? An embryo without a uterus lining technically has no chance of life and is not alive. Couples also have several options: one is to donate the eggs to medical research, donate the eggs to another infertile couple, thaw the eggs, freeze them forever or just for a little while. These parents knew the risks associated with IVF and now they must deal with them. IVF is a miracle procedure that provides beautiful, healthy children to those who cannot have them by themselves and it also helps ill parents create a child that won't inherit their diseases.
IVF Debate

However that's not the only issue with multiple embryos as after the process is all said and done, many wonder what happens to the unused embryos. Embryos tend to be stored in liquid nitrogen, this way they stay frozen and have the possibility of being used in a later date, but most couples find it difficult to think of the future of those embryos. Aanis Elspas, a mother of four, is one of these IVF parents and now she and her husband have to live through the agonizing pain of wondering what's the morally right decision to make. (motherjones.com). She has many options, to give the embryos away to another couple and realize her biological children will be raised by a different family, donate them to scientific research, or to destroy them. These are possibilities many parents after IVF are forced to face, and none of them are comforting. Elspas comments "[She doesn't have the heart to thaw them," (Motherjones.com) meaning she and many other parents are more willing to leave these embryos be destroyed mostly out of a moral standpoint. Yet this is a growing issue as well, in 2002 the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology decided to see how many unused embryos had accumulated in the nation's 430 fertility clinics. They were shocked to see that the number had been twice as large as previously estimated, at 400,000 frozen embryos that have existed with no work done to them.
yo mama jokes

yo mama is so fat, that she left the house in high heels and came back wearing flip flops yo mama is so fat, that she doesn"t eat with a fork, she eats with a forklift yo mama is so fat, that the sign inside the restaurant says "maximum occupancy: 300, or yo mama" yo mama is so fat, that she puts mayonnaise on aspirin yo mama is so fat, that her bellybutton"s got an echo yo mama is so fat, that the postal service gave her her own zip code
yo mama jokes

Yo, I accept.Your mama's so stupid.... thats it! Yo mama so ugly when she walks into a bank, they turn off the surveillance cameras Yo mamas so ugly she's the reason why Sonic the Hedgehog runs source: http://www.jokes4us.com...yo mama is so fat, when she steps on an elevator... it goes downyo mama is so fat, she doesn't eat with a fork, she eats with a forklift
I, studentathletechristian8, will forfeit the second round of this debate.

"My opponent states that he has forfeited the second round of the debate, thus affirming the resolution. However, I would like to see the evidence that it was actually him who forfeited the round and not somebody else." This is all the evidence you need: The resolution states, "I, studentathletechristian8, will forfeit the second round of this debate." The statement in my second round post reads, "studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round." Thus, the resolution remains affirmed. That is all the evidence I need. Besides, you cannot prove that I have not forfeited the second round. Good day. I urge a Pro vote. Thank you.
The god of the gaps is a bad argument

I understand that the instigator of this debate aka Kyleniel is not actually looking for a contention over his position. He simply wanted to manifest his discontent and used this platform to do so. In spite of that, I will try to engage him in a discussion, Which I don't think should be worth a voting, But you guys do whatever you want. Hey Ky! :) I hope you're ok with this and we manage to have an interesting exchange here. In your opening statement you wrote, "The God of the Gaps argument is false for several reasons". First of all, The term "God of the gaps" is universally regarded as a fallacy and is indeed a simple variation of ad ignorantiam as you've mentioned, A type of false dichotomy. However, It's not "false" :/ Maybe it's a "bad" argument, But it's not invalid, In the sense that it doesn't necessarily lead to a wrong conclusion. Considering you simply tried to explained why you thought it was "bad" in all of your 5 points, I won't hold you to it, Unless you want to try to take that direction. So, What can we do instead? We could change the motion to "The God of the Gaps is a bad argument". In that case I would try to present a case to explain why the God of the Gaps is such a persuasive argument. Not for science obviously, But in rethoric. I don't think you would be happy with that though :p What else? I can address the last 4 of your points independently. We forget the motion and I will simply try to dismantle your statements. Or. . . I try to make a case for the "God of the Gaps". Not as an argument but as a deity :D I wouldn't try to prove you Her existence on scientific terms, But I would try to justify her status as a God and why She should be worshipped. Summarizing: 1. You try to prove why "The god of the gaps argument is false", (but since it's not a formal fallacy I don't see where you can go here. ) 2. We change the motion to "The god of the gaps is a bad argument" and we debate it's rethorical quality. 3. I simply address your last 4 statements and we forget the motion. 4. "The God of the Gaps should have divine status" and I assume the burden of proof. Just pick one or 2 and we will go with that. If you're not interested in any of this, I also understand :) Stay curious!
The god of the gaps is a bad argument

The God of the Gaps argument is false for several reasons. 1. When each gap is filled, The believer is forced to jump to the next gap. This game can continue ad nauseam, Since human knowledge will never be able to explain everything (by definition of infinity, And by principles such as G"del's incompleteness theorems). However, The argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. The ultimate "gap" that likely cannot be bridged is "well, God started everything", Because even if something like the m-theory explaining how our universe could have "big banged" in the first place was proven to be true someone could always ask, "yes, But what created the membranes? " 2. Creationists generally declare that, Rather than filling a gap, A new piece of information simply generates two gaps, One on either side of the newly-established fact " meaning that additional information is understood to diminish the observational base of a theory. As such, Increases in knowledge would paradoxically increase human ignorance. 3. The God of the Gaps argument indicates enormous conceit because, By implication, A believer indicates that he (or she) has understanding of all there is, Except those things God did, And therefore declares that a miracle is necessary to make him (or her) fail to understand. It needs hardly to be said that this belief system has little do to with observation, And much to do with blind belief in the unknown. 4. For theists the weakness of "God of the Gaps" methodology is that their arguments for the existence of God are weakened every time scientists fill the "gaps" with real knowledge. In an attempt to sidestep this problem Howard Till, A theistic evolutionist, Proposes viewing the whole evolutionary saga as a pointer to a creative and generous God. However this is just "Goddit" on a slightly larger scale, And secondly, Not all the gaps into which God is shoehorned exist in the theory of evolution. 5. If a philosopher or social scientist were to try to encapsulate a single principle that yoked together the intellectual process of civilization, It would be a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic. Brick by brick, Century by century, With occasional burps and hiccups, The wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only " sometimes slow, Sometimes at a gallop, But never reversing course. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. ("Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, And darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency, But a little evil goblin dwelling inside. And he seems really pissed! ") Some magical presumptions have stubbornly persisted way longer than others, But have eventually, Inexorably fallen to logic, Reason and enlightenment, Such as the assumption of the divine right of kings and the entitlement of aristocracy. That one took five millennia, But fall it did.
Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended

I will defend my case and attack my opponents. My opponent argues that creating more jobs will decrease the deficit. With every job created, the economy is only being increased around $1.50 in worth. The cost of extending the tax cuts overpowers the benefit. The only way we can help improve our economy is through Socialist principles. During The Great Depression, government officials agreed that the only way to improve an economy is to increase the money flow. Voting Con will add over 500 million to the 1 trillion dollar deficit we already have. This actually will cause our country to endow into a W shaped recovery. We got what we needed in the short run from these tax cuts, so let them be ended. We have no domestic consumption to promote because our government has no money to just give away anymore. Precedents and failure have shown that just handing out stimulus checks to for short-term use does not work as well as it does on the chalkboard. Also voting Con will make the United States have a downward spiral know as the "slippery slope". The slope will be a continuing procrastination for ending the tax cut. Republicans will always argue for two more years. Without government intervention, more kids will go homeless from the lack of resources they do not possess. But taxing those who make well over what is necessary to run a more than sufficient household to create stimulus for below poverty citizens isn't fair? Not increasing the taxes now will only lead to more procrastination when the next tax cuts expire. When we look into the reality of it, nobody wants to be taxed more than they already are, but it is necessary for the future of our country's economy. Regarding my opponents Contention 1 and 2: Adding 3.1 million jobs is not going to effect the economy as much as the 954 billion dollar expenditures that along with it. Without the tax money, our government has only the option to keep borrowing the money adding to the debt. Extending the tax cuts so far have only made jobs scarce and unemployment high. Republicans would rather have low taxes, than the growth of an economy. Extending tax cuts is in fact the immoral decision. It shows how selfish people really are. When looking at it from a moral standpoint, extending tax cuts for struggling middle and lower class families is rational because these families need the money. Upper class citizens do not need that income as much as others do. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money"- This is not true. Remember that we are debating a tax CUT. These are not the normal taxes that should be in place now. The taxes were cut because the majority of citizens, whether wealthy or the less fortunate, were facing hard times. Now as we are slowing moving up, middle and lower class people are still suffering. Extending the taxes is only going to leave the rich richer and the poor even poorer until not only the unemployment rate is high, but so are the homeless rates as well.
Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended

Contention 1: Refusing to pass the tax cuts hurts the poor The Republicans and Democrats have recently reached a compromise over the tax cuts; if the Democrats extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, the Republicans will agree to a program which would stimulate job growth through a combination of unemployment insurance and tax cuts for America's poorest citizens. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the plan could create 3.1 million jobs. Voting for the pro and taking a moral stance against the "rich" is not just if it breaks the backs of America's poorest. Contention 2: It is unfair to punish the rich for being successful Taxing the rich is unjust--it's a punishment for success. Allowing the government to just increase taxes on the rich whenever they need extra money provides an incentive for fiscal responsibility. Voting con forces the government better fiscal practices-- which are the real key to closing the deficit and reducing our debt, instead of just increasing taxes whenever they screw up. In response to the pro's first and third contentions: We need short term stimulus right now even more than we did when the Bush Tax Cuts were originally taxed. Sure, our government needs tax revenue, but extending the tax cuts creates 3.1 million jobs-- or 3.1 million more tax payers. Improving our economies health in the short run by creating jobs creates the sustainable tax base we need to pay off our debt/reduce our deficit. Furthermore, neglecting to promote domestic consumption-- which is what we need to create jobs and power us out of our current recession-- increases the likelihood that we enter a "double dip" recession. Voting pro creates a "w" shaped recovery. Voting neg creates a "J" shaped recovery. A double dip recession and the massive stimulus required to escape it would put us in an even deeper hole for paying off our debt and closing our deficit. In response to the pro's second contention a) Why should the government be allowed to decide "what a reasonable limit is"? The government's definition of a "reasonable limit" is however much money they want. Unless you can prove that there is no other way to avert financial ruin besides increasing taxes on the rich, deciding to punish American citizens for being successful and hardworking is unjust.
Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Should Not be Extended

First I will say thank you for the debate. I hope to make this a fast debate because anyone can sit down and write 24 hours of a lecture straight from the internet, but a true debater writes his own work. I do not know the format my opponent wishes to use, but I will briefly state my arguments. Resolved: The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy should not be extended. I affirm the resolution. Contention 1. Let me first point out in my contention one that the Bush Tax Cuts were never intended to last this long. They were only a temporary stimulus to boost the economy for a short time. Our country vitally needs the tax revenue from these wealthy citizens. Contention 2. The government is only taxing those whom are WEALTHY! They can afford to be taxed to a reasonable limit. While those who can't afford to pay high taxes are losing their homes and vehicles to the government. Contention 3. The deficit in this country is huge. By not taxing these people, we are only adding more and more to that total debt. If the government does not find a way to decrease this debt, than we will eventually become bankrupt. Lets keep it brief and simple. Thank you.
3rd party pushes for increased graduation rates

What's up whyt3nn3rdy, I like your name and welcome to DDO! I'm just going to put up a few of my arguments briefly and let you start banging your head against the wall trying to find ways around my perfect logic. Just kidding, I'm not really that narcissistic. Close though. 1.When the goal is only increased graduation numbers quality is sacrificed. My father works at a community college, so I hear a lot about what the state uses as criteria for funding. One of the main things the state government wants is for more students to receive degrees. They want the school to increase retention rates, and give out more degrees. Well think about it, the main reasons people quit going to school is because of 1) not enough money or 2) the course work is too hard/time consuming or 3) the student experiences a sudden shift in circumstances such as a lost job. The school can keep more students in school by giving out more financial aid, which they do. The school cannot do anything about when a student has a sudden shift in circumstances. Therefore, the school turns to the second reason a student drops out of college. When the school is faced with either getting less money from the government or making coursework easier, the choice is clear – make course work easier! Make it easier on the student! 2.When quality is sacrificed degrees mean less. 3.When degrees mean less, schooling means less. This means people are increasingly paying more for school yet the degree itself means less. This is definitely not an improvement in the educational system. 4.When quality is sacrificed and A's are easier to get, there is less incentive to try hard. Because of this, students are studying and learning less and getting high grades. This is easily proven by comparing the United States to other first-world countries. The United States does very poorly, because we try to get so many graduates we depreciate our learning system. 5.Human capital is not improved Because of all the points I have presented thus far, increased graduation rates actually decrease human capital by lowering the average knowledge of each graduate over time.
3rd party pushes for increased graduation rates

This is my first debate in a while but it is a topic I feel strongly about. Resolved "Initiatives by third parties such as governments and organizations promoting the increase of graduation rates and graduation rates only have an overall positive affect on the educational system, on the usefulness of a degree/diploma, on the education of students and these initiatives significantly improve a country's human capital." I am on the con side of this resolution. I don't care if you just accept in the first round or if you present your arguments in the first round. Thanks for debating/reading this debate!
Atheism is a religion.

Con stated "Atheism, by definition is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Religion, by definition, is an organized set of beliefs based on the existence of deities or a super-human figure. "" I readily acknowledge that there is false equivocation in there, but I am debating on the grounds set by Con. To the extent that Theism (the belief in God) "is a Religion. " (Deism, Pantheism, Panenthism too) So too Atheism "is a Religion" in the form of Theraveda Buddhism.