BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The black death was caused by a volcano and not by germs.

Now this debate comes to an end. It seems that only CON was truly debating, while pro was on a diatribe about conspiracies and how everybody is wrong except for those who believe in those conspiracies. CON cited bonafide sources and demonstrated that there are NO fallacies in taking the CAUSE of the Black Plague as being infestation from a flea bite, while there are many fallacies involved in stating that volcanoes or famine or vitamin deficiency is the CAUSE. Pro's take in round 5..... 1. Pro puts forth yet another medical conspiracy yet does not refute CON's observation that the reduction in the incidence of many serious diseases " show a medical concern for reducing ( and NOT prolonging ) diseases'." 2. Pro states "This debate is about CAUSES " and yet he misunderstands the causal / casual distinction. While there may exist a casual temporal relationship between volcanoes, famine, and vitamin deficiency with the Black Plague ( i.e. one happened before the other) there is NO CAUSAL LINK. 3. Pro states ""Casual and casual relationships"???????????? What nonsense is this? " Look at the relationship between, for example, the consumption of ice cream and drowning. More people swim in the summer. More people drown in the summer. More ice cream is eaten in the summer. Does ice cream CAUSE one to drown? NO. The relationship is that both activities happen in the summer heat. (And by the way, the summer heat does not CAUSE drowning either!). 4. The assertion that "all disease is the result of vitamin deficiency" is ridiculous prima facia,, As CON pointed out before, of the 20 main categories of diseases, only some are treated by vitamin therapy. These are well know conditions such as scurvy and rickets. Vitamins may be applied for other conditions to treat contributing factors that are non causal. Thus CON has refuted each and every assertion of Pro. P.S. ...It is inappropriate for a debater to comment during the voting period.
Abortion

Thank you, but although all Orphanage's are not abusive, many are. Abortions should remain legal and are a difficult choice for the woman to make as well. Maybe that woman has been through trauma in foster care or orphanage's, or even group homes and has seen it all, but is not able to properly care for the child and give the child the proper life he/she needs, and or deserves, the only other option she sees fit is abortion before this child has to suffer further pain for as long as he/she lives. There are thousands of scenario's on why abortions should be legal, can any one give me a thousand reasons why it should not? Rest on that question.
Abortion

Indeed you are absolutely right pertaining to a pregnant women being killed would be a double murder but in that case you have no idea if that mother wanted to keep that child or not and is a fact you will never know because both are dead. Therefore, that is not relevant to abortions being illegal. Returning back to my statement before, I gave many scenario's in which in many cases it may not be the woman's fault for being pregnant. Now my opponent referred to adoptions, and orphanage's. January 2000 there were approximately 520,000 children in foster care in the US, of those 520,000 children only 117,000 were eligible for adoption, that leaves 403,000 hopefuls many in which will never be adopted, I guess there are not that many men or women wanting to adopt at least not enough of them anyway. I will get just a bit personal now. As an ex foster child myself I grew up with ever lasting emotional and physical pain. In many cases they will say foster homes and orphanage's are the best place in which I must disagree. As a fetus I would have loved the choice to choose between being aborted rather than a life of pain. I was placed in a foster home that was claimed to be liveable and safe. I was 18 months, still a baby and I was burned and beat traumatized. Now this is where everything gets interesting. I have 5 other siblings all who have also been in group homes and foster care 2 who have gone through the adoption system, and every last one of us has been abused in different homes. we were and abused. Does this still sound like a very nice thing to do? Why make a child suffer when that does not have to be an option one moment of pain compared to the abuse he/she will most likely endure. I understand many of you would like to see where my facts come from below are Links. http://freelegaladvicehelp.com... http://www.childrensrights.org...
Abortion

abortions should not be allowed as the child inside the womb has life. The government cannot decide whether the child has life or not. When a pregnant women is killed it is double murder one for the mom and another for the child. But when it is aborted it is just a cell. A child in the womb is a multi celled organism and is not considered life. But a single celled organism in space is life. You hear stories of baby's who weren't killed in while the abortion was happening. They remember the pain. Was it the baby's decision to be conceived? No! It was the parents foolishness. If they play the should pay. In case your wondering how many abortions there have been. If the whole world had to be quiet for a second for every abortion it would take over 100 years! What if that baby has the cure for cancer and you just kill the young innocent child. There is also the option of orphanage and adoptions. There are many women that cannot have a baby and do adopt.
Abortion

Hello, I will be Pro Abortions. My opening statement, I would simply like to state just a few facts as well as opinions. In not only my opinion but also in the opinion of many others Abortions are not bad. You would have to understand each and every woman's Scenario, or reason for aborting. Ask yourself, if you were unable to care for a child, would you keep him/her? Many scenario's are as follows: Lack of funds, a rape scenario where it was not fault of the Victim, Age being as young as 12 and being able to conceive a child when a 12 year old is a child themselves. This is a fact that since 1973 over 50 million women went through with abortion. In the year 2000 57% of the women who had abortions had low income. Rhetorical question, ask yourself would you bring an innocent child into this world if given the choice in which you didn't have to, in which you can spare the child long lasting emotional pain?
Theodore Roosevelt was not a very good president

"The Brownsville Affair did not affect Roosevelt's election, it affected the Republican controlled Congress"1 affair happening in 1 town in the state of TEXAS, the state that almost always votes for the conservative party as if their lives depend on it, clearly and strongly suggests that this affair in no means had any effect on the midterm elections of 1906. Even if people learned that the claims made against the black soldiers were completely fabricated, President Roosevelt had nothing to do with that, he only made the wrong decision of discharging the soldiers, and making one mistake one time doesnt disqualify him from being a great president and negate all the great things he did. "President Roosevelt signed 1,081 Executive Orders. "Feel free to point out which ones you have a problem with because there's nothing wrong with passing a thousand Executive Orders when a large majority of those orders have to do with mundane affairs such as"Mr. F. A. Collins may be appointed to the vacancy now existing in the position of private secretary to the Public Printer without examination under the civil-service rules. " or"It is hereby ordered that San Nicolas Island, California, be and it is hereby reserved for lighthouse purposes. "He may have passed 1,000 Executive Orders but that isnt itself somehow a bad thing considering an overwhelmingly large majority of them were about perfectly harmless and mundane affairs. Feel free to go through them yourself: . http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com... "Another point I would like to bring up is President Roosevelt's grooming of the next president, William Howard Taft"Oh spare me. .. . What President HASN'T thrown his entire support behind someone in their own party when that person decided to run for President after them? Clinton did it for Al Gore, and Reagan did it for George HW, but neither of them are somehow bad presidents for doing the exact same thing that countless other presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, did before them. There's also nothing inherently wrong with a soon-to-be former President endorsing someone to be President after them either. "President Roosevelt was not the great president everybody believes him to be. " - Created the National Parks system to protect national natural treasures - Kickstarted the Progressivist movement that led to the creation of the middle class and ended the Gilded Age - Improved the American military, mostly the navy, under the 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick' idea to improve American influence - Won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. - Passed the Meat Inspection and Pure Drug + Food Acts to ensure that our food wasnt stuffed with rat feces anymore- He's on Mt Rushmore where being a great president is kind of a requirement- Military veteran and war heroAnd thats just off the top of my head. Theodore Roosevelt was a great president who had a few hiccups here and there like any great other president does.
Theodore Roosevelt was not a very good president

The Brownsville Affair did not affect Roosevelt's election, it affected the Republican controlled Congress. The administration withheld this event from the public until after the black pro-Republicans had placed their votes. You say that Roosevelt doesn't have to be a detective but it wasn't like he was only given this one option. Booker T. Washington even came to him and asked him to reconsider his position but he denied it and stood by his decision. http://en.wikipedia.org... An overpowering executive branch doesn't have to correlate with astronomical government spending. The spending was low for that time but Roosevelt still pushed for a strong executive branch. I stand by the use of the quote, ""I believe in power"I did greatly broaden the use of executive power," but apologize for not naming my sources last round: http://www.cato.org... President Roosevelt signed 1,081 Executive Orders. Although President Obama has been criticized for taking control of government through his excessive use of executive orders, even he has only issued 194 executive orders. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://thehill.com... Another point I would like to bring up is President Roosevelt's grooming of the next president, William Howard Taft. When that backfired on him Roosevelt decided to run again under the Progressive party. This ultimately split the vote and put Woodrow Wilson into office. http://us-presidents.findthebest.com... President Roosevelt was not the great president everybody believes him to be.
Theodore Roosevelt was not a very good president

"Theodore Roosevelt was a stubborn man"Opinion"he took his ego to an extreme level"Opinion"Roosevelt was a political animal"Opinion"In the instance of the Brownsville Affair he dishonorably discharged black troops only AFTER he had secured the black-vote"Okay its become evident now that you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. For starters, the Brownsville Affair happened in 1906 which happened 2 years AFTER Roosevelt had already been elected, and he didnt run in the election of 1908 two years after that, so he had no political motivations for his decision in the affair what-se-everBlacks barely HAD any voting power around 1900. The Civil Rights movement that led to the repeal of poll taxes and other practices used to dispel the black vote didnt come until 1965, which means that the black vote was pretty nonexistent to begin with. In addition to that, Roosevelt didnt even NEED the black vote, he won the 1904 election by a healthy majorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org...Lastly, the Brownsville Affair took place in Texas when several townspeople in Brownsville accused black troops stationed nearby for two crimes, and evidence was fabricated against them to imply their guilt. Roosevelt's job isnt to be a damn detective, he likely was told that there was evidence agains the troops for the incidents, evidence he had know way of knowing was planted in the first place, and dismissed them accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org..."Many people complain today that the executive branch is overpowering the other branches, this can be largely contributed to Roosevelt"Actually it cannot. Evidence of the level of government spending under Theodore Roosevelt was actually among some of the lowest levels ever recorded, and the huge increase in the size of government didnt occur until well after Theodore Roosevelt was no longer president. http://object.cato.org...http://www.usgovernmentspending.com..."He even said...."Look bud, you haven't provided any sources suggesting that any of those quotes belong to him, or any sources that anything else you have said so far is even remotely true either. Until you do I shall reject your claims as false, and I point back to my evidence suggesting that Teddy Roosevelt didnt expand the government that much to begin with.
Theodore Roosevelt was not a very good president

Theodore Roosevelt was a stubborn man, which is usually celebrated in a president. However, he took his ego to an extreme level. Roosevelt was a political animal. In the instance of the Brownsville Affair he dishonorably discharged black troops only AFTER he had secured the black-vote. The motive for this was purely political. Many people complain today that the executive branch is overpowering the other branches, this can be largely contributed to Roosevelt. He even said, ""I believe in power"I did greatly broaden the use of executive power"The biggest matters I managed without consultation with anyone, for when a matter is of capital importance, it is well to have it handled by one man only "I don"t think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man"s hands."
Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons

I have not answered you, Sir, because no one said that the mentally handicapped person has an undesirable life! I will not pull Ad Hominem against you as that is unproffesional and a fallacy, but, it is infrequent to hear of a mentally retarded person on CNN crying about their life being stressful! This is suggesting to never give mentally handicapped people the oppurtunity to live their lives as everyone else. Perhaps having a child should be banned for everyone. As you may recall, I reminded you that two perfectly healthy parents can produce a mentally handicapped child. Who are you to assume that that child will be born perfect and not disabled? Who are you to propose that it is unthinkable for a mentally handicapped person to have a child when you yourself could just as well? An IQ below 80 is considered mentally retarded. As mentioned in an earlier argument, mentally handicapped people always need help with their lives, as you said, 24 hours a day. What guardian in their right mind would allow their paitient to have sex? A parent, as I'm sure you know, has the option of sterilizing their child if the child is found to have developemental disabilities. Maybe precedents to this argument have been brought up so that people in the District of Columbia can wear suits, however; some big-shot congressman will feel awful when they produce a mentally disabled child with their beautiful and perfectly healthy wife/husband only to find out that, by law, they are required to end their families legacy because of an inpersonal decision they made in Washington for a little extra publicity.
Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons

oh get lost , you make rediculous statements , " people that rape aren't required to use protection , believe it or not " ...... high schoolers have children yet they are not sterilized , you idiot , if this high school pupil is I guess below 18 then its illegal ! But you cant sterilize them , or you wont have a next generation... When will you realise I am not insulting somebody who is mentally retarded , but merely pointing out the facts , These people deserve a great life , we owe it to them I guess . One thign they should not be allowed to do I'm afraid to say is have children as for some reason you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED ME why a child should be born into this kind of life , huh ? answer me . Why should a child suffer being born to two mentally retarded parents dn he himself might be also mentally handicapped ? Get off your political correct bandwagon and open your eyes , what are you going to say next , all blind people have the right to drive just like everybody else ?
Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons

In the event of a rape, the offender would usually not require the female/male victim to wear "protection". As unbelievable as it may sound to some people, there are exceptions. In this case, an exception reguarding AIDs may lead to a worldwide problem. That is why no one should have sex with a monkey. Certain forms of cancer, especially breast cancer, (which, guess what?, is the most common) have proven to be passed on hereditarily, usually in the form of a higher risk. True, environmental influences cause many other cancers. Going back to the actual topic, no one is fit to have a child until they have one. If mentally handicapped people can't take care of children, surely high schoolers can't. Unfortunately high schoolers won't ever be sterilized as it would be "ridiculous" or "appaling" to people pulling the card of morality. Don't suggest that mentally handicapped people don't deserve as much recognition because they have no potential to ever make something of themselves. This is insulting to millions LIVING.
Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons

don't compare me to Hitler , that's a low blow you just delivered , your argument is just nonsense. Yes I am saying mentally handicapped people are unable to look after children because if they were fit to look after them why do they need carers for themselves ?? 24hr normally ... You are just jumping on the P.C bandwagon , disabled people have the same rights as us , they are human , but there is no human right for having children . You cannot justify allowing two mentally disabled people to have a child , as there is a very high chance it will be passed to the child and even if it isn't imagine being the child . If you have aids , its already against the law for you to have unprotected sex . If you have cancer chances are you have not thought about having children , or have already had them , plus it has been proved cancer is not passed in the genes while , being mentally handicapped has , not always but quite often has . Now come back to me with a real argument , not so much as for the rights of these people having a child , but for the child as well. Also don't bother comparing peoples arguments to Hitler's ideas , its an insult to the millions dead because of him.
Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons

The argument that has been made suggests that two perfectly healthy parents can not produce a mentally handicapped child. Simple genetics proves that many mental disabilities are recessive. Therefore, a heterozygous mother and heterozygous father may produce a homogeneous recessive child. The recessive gene of the mother and father may contain the mental disablility which was simply over shadowed by the dominant gene. There is the first fallacy in your statement. The second is that, from such a perspective, mental retardation prevents a person from continuing their lives as humans as they assumedly have no thought or feelings of their own. Essentially, the argument suggests that sterilization of mentally handicapped persons is justified as they are unfit to handle a child. Further in this argument, it is suggested that two mentally handicapped parents should have no justification for having a child as they are passing on a hereditary problem. If going this route, one may argue that to prevent the spread of such a hereditary malfunction, you must wipe out the problem by essentially wiping out a population. Therefore, AIDs, Huntingtons, Multiple Sclerosis, Cancers, etc. would all have to be "wiped out" as they are unfit to handle a child for they are passing on the disease and disablility, so the argument suggests. Hitler did the same thing.
Mandatory Sterilization of Profoundly Mentally Handicapped Persons

I accept you feel strongly about this , but to an extent the human race has gone to far with having to be "nice" to everybody , its not a human right to reproduce , in nature the strongest survive , its triadic when somebody is born mentally handicapped but if they have children , imagine it , its a crime against nature ( now I say this in not a bad way ) imagine being the child , you might be born mantially retarded , or if you are not your mum or dad is. It would bring a tear to my eye if I saw a mentally handicapped person , with two mentally handicapped parents . They are most likely unable to look after this child , who's life would be already over from being born mentally handicapped. Please come to your senses , disabled people deserve to be treated the same as us , but this is stupid . Sure its not the person fault for being mentally handicapped , but why make a child suffer so much ? from either being born mentally handicapped or having maybe both parents born handicapped. * I would like to point out I have no problem with people who are mentally retarded , infact I have done some volunteer work looking after them , I have seen it all with my eyes how they suffer , but also how they are just human as well *
All first time parents should be required to take a safety class for the emergency care of infant

"How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do?" - Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED" When you say that I see a program that my tax dollars have to go to, where women are forced to go take this class. If they fail to attend they receive a fine or at worst get children taken away because they did not go to a stupid government program teaching parents how to raise their kids. "You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one." - Of course not, but it dose show that the courses are out there and that women who have children can decide for themselves if they need a course or not. It's not up to government it's up to the people. "Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government." - This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad. "Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed." - Of course you can paint the picture that way, but it dose not fit into personal freedom. Why should the government be able to decide if a parent is capable or not?? It is not up to them!! the classes are there the people must make their own minds up, we are not sheep Candice that need to rely on big daddy government to hold our hands. The American people have brains. "Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart." - Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.