BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA championship this year

I apologize for my lack of debating the previous round. Anyways lets begin, The Boston Celtics will win the NBA Championship this year, It's that plain and simple. Now I do not know which team in the NBA you feel has a stronger chance of winning, but whoever they are certainly will not make a difference. The Celtics currently drew the ATlanta Hawks for the first round of the playoffs. Currently the Celtics have gone 2 for 3 against the ATL Hawks this year for games. With history on the Celtics side we know they have Atlanta's number. The Celtics will certainly be able to cruise through ATL without any problems. Now with more details regarding this debate I would also like to point out that the Boston Celtics current starting five consist of; Paul Pierce (SF) Avery Bradley (SG) currently has been playing since Ray Allen has been out with injury, but has proven he is a starter in the NBA Kevin Garnett (C) Rajon Rondo (PG) Brandon Bass (PF) While Atlanta's is; Marvin Williams (SF) Josh Smith (PF) Last time i did check I did hear Smith is currently injured Jeff Teague (PG) Joe Johnson (SG) Al Horford (C) Now I would also like to state that at the beginning of this season the Celtics were being labeled by sports networks as out and done.The fact the Celtics have turned this season the opposite way and have now locked up a #4 seed in the Playoffs says a lot. More reasons why I feel the Celtics could pull this off; 1. Contracts are running up for the big three this year and the Celtics now need to start worrying about who is worth re-signing and who isn't, this just adds to the fact the big three will be playing hard as it may be their last time together. 2. The bench players have been stepping up big time. Players like Avery Bradley, Michael Pietrus, Keyon Dooling, Chris Wilcox have been adding big numbers in bench points and have been hitting the boards hard. 3. Why can't they? The Celtics have nothing to lose at this point, Teams like Chicago, Miami, Indiana have more pressure to pull of playoff games then the Celtics, The Celtics started this year with the mind set of transition from Old players to young and have begun to pull it off. 4. Many big name teams out their are beginning to fall off, Teams like Chicago, Miami, LA Lakers, Dallas are all facing big time injuries, lack of playing, small mistakes that keep adding up I just also want to add for this debate if you could just be sure to state which NBA team you feel has a better chance of winning and why? And at the same time agree or disagree with what I have stated.
You can only be moral if you believe in a religion.

It is unfortunate that my opponent (and instigator) of this debate did not have enough time, for whatever reason, to respond to any of my arguments. I will therefore take this time to reiterate what I've already said and make new arguments if possible. It is unnecessary for one to believe in a greater being and/or use that belief as an incentive to do what is "right". Furthermore, as in the examples above, doing what one thinks is "right" because of religion is sometimes considered wrong by others living the moral standard of society. It is easy enough to see how those people's lives who have never heard of religion have morality. They simply have invested themselves into another person through caring which offers both immediate (feel good) and long-term (camaraderie/"favorability") results. I await my opponent's responses to the points I have made at his earliest opportunity.
You can only be moral if you believe in a religion.

A person can be moral without believing in a religion. I offer the following definitions for this debate: moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods The assumption of the PRO is that in order to be moral, one must have religion. However, it is clear that believing in a greater being does not make someone moral nor does it require someone to be moral. First off, people who have religion are often of poor moral character. For example, jihadists claiming that a religion (Islam) requires them to kill "infidels" is immoral on the grounds that killing another human being is immoral. While a jihadist may be extremely religious they are not moral because they sacrifice societal morality (what people view as wrong (killing)) for upholding their own extremist interpretation of a religious text. This is selfish because it disallows the potential victims from recourse (they are dead) and immoral because it does not take into consideration the lives of others as moral actors (and dehumanizes them accordingly). Secondly, often those who claim to be religious (evangelicals and the like) often sacrifice the moral aspect of a text for a forceful and often intolerant view. They choose to often ignore the teachings of tolerance and peace for ideologies of judgment and violence. If you need examples, I will present them in the next round but I think it's evident that extremists who are religiously fervent are often morally inept. Lastly, belief in a supreme being is necessarily exclusive of moral character because situations and events permit morality to be tested without the incentive or need for a belief. The idea that morality and religion are exclusively linked comes from the belief in a moral human being who preached about how a greater being wants us to live (i.e. Siddhartha Gautama or Jesus). However, people before them could have easily lived a moral life based on the situation at the time and using either a retributive or utilitarian paradigm. They could have weighed a choice based on facts to make a decision that would make anyone and everyone happy. For example, a farmer comes across a field of wild berries. He decides that the berries are plentiful enough to feed himself and many more. The moral thing for him to do is to present the finding to others, benefit them (and benefit him in return) and share in the discovery. However, no belief system would be necessary other than a caring for others and humanitarian mindset. A supreme being need not be a defining or deciding factor for good moral character.
You can only be moral if you believe in a religion.

Morality is intrinsically based upon what one feels is right. While some people do subscribe to the beliefs of a given religion and/or way of life that does not necessarily make them moral. Morality means that you conciously choose to follow a given path and following something because a religion tells you to means that one can listen and follow the ideas of others but they fail to think for themselves and to follow a path that they feel is right and therefore moral.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"

That's what I thought. The 15 year old spoiled brat punk kid cannot follow simpleton rules and prove that Richard Dawkins is wrong. So he evades and tries to change the subject of the debate which is not about me at all though he tries to make it about me. The subject of this debate is about his unproven god which he cannot even prove exists for god's sake and he knows it and the subject of this debate is "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:" which is a quote from Richard Dawkins which happens to be 100% true, As well as is the rest of his quote, So Con would be required to prove Richard Dawkins incorrect. Con 100% knows he cannot do this so instead of making his attempts to trying to disprove Richard Dawkins, The 15 year old twerp birds nest soup for a brain tries but fails miserably to make the argument about lil ole me. Isn't that cute and as fuzzy as a cuddly teddy bear ready to breed on his beddy bye sheets? He's got one more shot at this. Can he put 1 + 1 together and = 2? Or does the cow hynde rind become a skeleton dancing yeast infection resurrection medication dedication and thus 1 + 1 = 4. 687 to him on a wooden slab of a lonely abacus? Yeah. As you can tell, I don't listen to Con or read what he has to say because there's nothing of value he can bring to this argument unless he can disprove Richard Dawkins as being incorrect in which, Again, He cannot do.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"

Not only has the pro not backed up their initial claim, But furthermore all but refuse to. Unless pro recognizes that they must present evidence and not just stances, And then proceeds to do so, I have won the debate. I'd also like to point out pro's very hostile conduct, Not criticizing my stance but instead mocking me as a person, Which is actually an argumentative fallacy known as an ad hominem.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"

Nevermind. Get lost hot stuff. Remain a 15 year old for the rest of your life. Continue to learn nothing new. Continue to be abrasive and never have any genuine friends or loved ones in your life, Not ever, A HUGE red flag, Continue to have the runs in a smoggy Haitian town while being Bar Mitzpahed. Too much matzo for your infertile snookums brain while you yodel a grunge country opera that asks for a new Waverunner for your har, Oh sorry, Hair to cover up that zit you've got huh?
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"

This is why you are only 15 and a typical 15 year old understudy of a mountainous range. First of all have a look at who made the claim you stupid little imp in which is a 100% truth in which you have not read your bible so you cannot possibly know its truth so you cannot make any claims against its truth and wow does that show like mud bricks splattered all over your face pretending to be cookie chocolate brownies. And then what is stated is prove Richard Dawkins incorrect. Now how's that for a furry tongue twister. So its only one claim that your teeny tiny infidel toxic meat chow brain cannot handle. Darn.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, Unjust, Unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, Bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, Homophobic, Racist, Infanticidal, Genocidal, Filicidal, Pestilential, Megalomaniacal, Sadomasochistic, Capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. " - Richard Dawkins He's 100% correct Prove Richard Dawkins incorrect. dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"

Let's take a look at the Richard Dawkins' quote in question. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, Unjust, Unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, Bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, Homophobic, Racist, Infanticidal, Genocidal, Filicidal, Pestilential, Megalomaniacal, Sadomasochistic, Capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. " This statement, As you can see, Is a stance, But not evidence in and of itself. The default stance to take on a strong claim without evidence is that it is false. As such, There is no need to disprove it, Because the logical stance to take is that it is already false from the outset. In this entire debate pro provided a stance, But no evidence. I didn't need to prove Richard Dawkins wrong as there was no reason whatsoever to believe he was right in the first place. The burden of proof was on the pro, And he gave no proof.
Insert topic here.

Straight into contentions: 1) Net neutrality would go against the idea of a free market. Obviously in our capitalist society, we are free to form whatever companies we wish and attempt to market our idea to the general public. The same would go for ISP's; why limit the serviceability of a company? Net neutrality essentially neutralizes every ISP, making all companies provide the same network, and eliminating competition and the idea of capitalism. 2) No ISP can force everyone to have a slow network, so "net 'inequality'" is not a problem. Because we are a capitalist economy, a company is allowed to try whatever marketing ideas they wish. Since there is more than one ISP, the consumers are free to choose the one that pleases them. If an ISP slows down that consumer's internet to make them pay for speed, then that person will simply switch providers. That's all for now: I negate that "Net neutrality should be made into law and enforced", because it goes against the idea of capitalism and is unnecessary.
Insert topic here.

My opponent will be going first, so just for this argument, I will outline the basics of what net neutrality is for my opponent and the audience: "Net Neutrality": A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams (wikipedia/google) Basically, with net neutrality, a company cannot charge extra for access to certain parts parts of the internet, and they can't intentionally slow down the access to the net, only to charge more for the freer speed. However, this net neutrality only causes more government restrictions on the system, and may lower competition and capitalism, the basis for our national economy. My opponent will be going first, good luck.
Insert topic here.

Contender R1: Propose at least 3 resolutions of varying subjects, and pick "PRO" or "CON" for each one. Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate. Contender R2: Choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal. Rounds 3-5: Debate!
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

Well in your last argument you gave me a whole bunch of Bo Jackson's statistics. Now your saying it's not about statistics but what you contribute to a team. Now first of all statistics are not based on how many rings you won. There based on how well you do in the regular season and playoff stats. MJ cracked many records and he did this by staying durable. So since it is about what you contribute to a team let's talk about it. Bo Jackson as an MLB player never lead the Royals to the playoffs. What he did in the all star game was impressive but still never lead his team to anything. Now in football he did go into the playoffs but never won the super bowl. So contribution wise Bo Jackson didn't do a whole lot. Don't get me wrong Bo Jackson was an impressive athlete in college and did many things but he got in the pros he was just good not great. Also when Jackson was in the MLB he was never able to get high batting averages as he only averaged a .250 in 8 seasons. Also in the 1989 season in just 139 games out of 162 Bo Jackson struck out 172 times which is quite a lot. Power wise he was pretty good but as a baseball player he was mediocre. As a football player he was god but not great. Bo Jackson will be remembered for his college career rather than his pro career.
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

I admitted I made a mistake with the title but I planned on carrying this through. I love football and I think their were a lot of excellent players out there. I could have made this easy on myself and said Jerry Rice was the best wide receiver ever but that would be hard to argue given the stats. If all we do is use statistics then Michael Jordan is not the greatest in basketball because Bill Russell had 9 straight titles, 8 as a player under Red Auerbach and one as the coach of the Boston Celtics. Statistics are great but it is what you contribute to a team. Bo was as electrifying as Barry, as powerful as Campbell or Riggins, as elusive as Dickerson and as fast as any other to play. Your argument started well but now it is all ifs and buts. You can't say what we would call Gretzky or Jordan had they only played five years and you can't say what Bo would have done if he played longer. He was hurt in college and in the pro's and recovered from both. He has proved his durability, he just chose baseball over football. He was also a track and field champion and a very good basketball player. He was a naturally gifted athlete and if for no other reason that is why I believe he was the greatest. He was humble, smart and could play any sport. To sit there and say he might have gotten worse is a poor argument. He may have become better too! Like I said before he shared time with Allen, he had 3 coaches in 4 years, a mediocre (at best) line and yet in any 4 year period of any running backs career he had the best yards per carry average 5.5!!!! That is amazing for a guy who only played half a year and was still learning the playbook each year with a new offense!!!
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

Durability is based on success. Let's use your examples. Michel Jordan and Wayne Gretzky were great hall of famers but imagine if they played only 4 seasons. Even though they called Gretzky the great one in his third year if he had a season ending injury he would have been forgotten. He was durable on the ice and established himself as one of the best goal scorers in the game. Same with Michael Jordan. Nobody would call him the best person to ever play in the NBA if he only played 4 years. Even though you messed up on the title of the debate you can't call somebody great if they only played 4 years and as I said in my last argument you don't know if Bo Jackson would have played well in his 5th year or 6th year what happens if he started to play bad? We simply don't know.
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

Now those stats are nice but durability is a key factor in being good or great. You could be a rookie projected to be one of the greatest running backs in the NFL but if you keep getting hurt your going to be forgotten. The greatest running backs in the game were durable and therefore had hall of fame careers. It's not that Bo Jackson wasn't a good running back but he wasn't the greatest of all time. Also he only played 4 seasons. There always could have been chance that that after that he could have been a bad player. We simply don't know and because of that hes not the greatest running back of all time.
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

Thank you for accepting. Walter and Barry as I said were great. I can not put emmitt in the same category because he played behind arguably the best offensive line ever and had the pressure taken off him by a great quarterback, a great tight, a great receiver and a really good #2 receiver. I stated in my opening argument that Bo's career was cut short and so he doesn't have the stats over a 9-12 year period like some. Bo had the longest rush in the NFL in three of the four seasons he played. Jackson and O.J. Simpson remain the only two players to record the league"s longest rush in three different NFL seasons. Bo rushed for a 90-yard touchdown in a game" twice in his career. Ahman Green is the only other player in NFL history to accomplish that feat. But the former Raider was more than just two runs or some highlight films. In 1987, 1989, and 1990, Jackson averaged at least 5.5 yards per carry and rushed for at least 70 yards per game; the great Jim Brown and Dan Towler, another one of the game"s great power/speed backs, are the only two other players to ever have three such seasons (and no one has had four). There are other ways to capture what Bo did in his brief career. Because he was busy being a baseball player, Bo missed the first third of the season each year. If we look at the data starting in week 7, from 1988 to 1990, Bo compares pretty favorably to the elite running backs of his day. Over that span he ranked third in rushing yards while averaging over five yards per carry. Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com: see table at http://www.footballperspective.com... He only played in the NFL for four years, from the ages of 25 to 28. To level the playing field, let"s compare him to every other running back in league history, but only at those ages. Among players with at least 500 carries, Jackson averaged the most yards per carry: see table at http://www.footballperspective.com... In the 4 years Bo played football these are his career statistics Games Attempts Yards TD Long Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yards Y/R TD Long R/G YScm 38 515 2,782 16 92 5.4 73.2 13.6 40 352 8.8 2 27 9.3 3134 http://www.pro-football-reference.com... if averaged over 10 years 160 2168 11,712 68 ?? 168 1482 8 13194 Bo's stats at Auburn 650 4303 43 6.6 26 272 10.5 2 4575 One needs to imagine if he was in football shape and stayed healthy enough for 10 years he would probably have even better statisctics. Like I said he also shared the backfield. Walter, Barry and emmitt didn't.
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

Now I'm not gonna lie Bo Jackson was talented. He was very fast and agile but he was no where close to being the greatest running back of all time. What about people like Emmit Smith and Walter Payton. If Bo Jackson was durable maybe he could have cracked the list but playing 4 seasons in the NFL would never make you close to being the greatest running back of all time. Bleacher Report recently came out with a list of the top 10 greatest running backs of all time and Bo Jackson was never mentioned. . http://bleacherreport.com...
Bo Jackson was the greatest running back ever

Jim Brown had a great career but being bigger than almost everyone you faced doesn't make you great it just makes you one bad mutha****er. Barry had amazing agility, Walter was great and a few others bear honorable mention especially Hershel Walker. Walker never got the respect he deserved. Bo was a different breed; naturally big, very fast and as brian bosworth found out pretty dang powerful!!! Bo only played 4 short seasons (played baseball until October) but his stats are pretty impressive when you look at them especially with sharing the backfield with Marcus Allen.