BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Race does not influence the individual

My opponent still fails to recognize the fact that if you do not clarify your initial statement expect your opposition to create one for you and that is exactly what was done. What you may have meant to say is not what you said. It may have been in the title but it was not there in your opening giving me free reign upon the design o the specifics of this debate. 1)Your resolution was not clear hence not valid. 2) Your agnosticism has nothing to do with your argument's you did not clarify the terms so I did 3) Your arguments have been refuted as well as your failure to elaborate the effects of testosterone upon intelligence, and your consequential agreement with my point upon this subject My arguments showed a direct rebuttal from everything posted in the first round which refuted any arguments you come up with as well as the adding of new points to further refute your stance, also my stance pointed that it played only a part not the sole role so your argument still bears zero weight. I shall now conclude with the fact that my adversary has in fact failed to prove the point given (that genetics are the sole factor for intellectual levels) and he is still clinging to the fact that it was not his intended argument but that does not change the fact that he failed to elaborate in the beginning and due to that failure I elaborated for him. I would also like to mention that the last argument I had made in the second round showed that there are no races within the human species due to the fact DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. So in the light that race does not exist both the argument given, and your wanted argument are refuted hence still proving my point. Also my original arguments stating it only plays a part and is not the sole role further prove my point. - Sources for race not existing - . http://www.iol.co.za... . http://www.topix.com... . http://www.eurekalert.org... . http://www.nowpublic.com... . http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com... . http://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://ianramjohn.wordpress.com... - Sources for heredity not being the sole factor - . http://wilderdom.com... . http://social.jrank.org... . http://genealogy.about.com... . http://www.molwick.com... . http://www.education.com... . http://www.sparknotes.com... . http://www.mindfocus.net... . http://www.udel.edu... . http://www.libraryindex.com... . . . .
Race does not influence the individual

=== Prestandards === Go totally unchallenged. So you can ignore Pro's untagged miscellaneous jumble of sources. === Framework === Pro challenges the framework, writing: " The point of this debate is for you to prove that genetics is the sole contributing factor, " This is obviously false. The actual title of the debate is "race does not influence the individual". In the opening post, I wrote: "race and genetics might influence individual achievement levels". So I don't have to defend the absolute genetic/race position. I have never defended it anywhere on this site or in my life. In defense, Pro writes: I made it this way for you failed to elaborate your standpoint on the first round so I defined and founded my argument (that genetics are not the sole factor of intelligence) and your argument (that genetics are the sole factor of intelligence), So Pro is willingly working outside the framework of the resolution, but defends it anyway. This is wrong on so many levels. 1) I am the instigator. Since the resolution was created by me, Pro has no right to join the debate and change it. This is "abuse" because there's no limit to what he can change the resolution to. 2) In the opening post, I explained that I was agnostic about some attributes and race. This implies that agnosticism is a sufficient condition for con victory. 3) Even if I have to defend the absolutist position, I am not confined to intelligence. Under this interpretation, you could still carry my Testosterone argument as Con advocacy. === Pro Arguments === Mostly just framework nonsense here. Pro gives no direct rebuttal. I'll just highlight argument 4, where Pro concedes that intelligence is part genetic. So Race DOES influence the individual. === Con Case === 1) Intelligence Again, I get no response. Since there is no direct evidence for or against genetic components to intelligence, we should remain agnostic. We should not rule out a genetic cause because many other traits are known to be genetic. 2) Testosterone No response. Testosterone differs between races and has an impact on individual characteristics and behavior. Remember, even if you buy Con's nonsense about how I have to defend "all nature no nurture", this point is still relevant. === Conclusion part 2 === Hmm I win conduct because I've actually formatted and tagged my case... again. I win grammar and spelling because Pro's is atrocious. I win arguments because Pro has operated entirely outside the framework and failed to respond to my arguments and criticisms of his case. Thanks again.
Race does not influence the individual

It is a shame when my opposition does not read my full argument, I said genetics has some influence but it is not the primary influence and if you payed attention you could clearly see my evidence, and you consider it to be "trollery" (which is not a real word) when I post an argument and relevant information well than that means that "trollery" is a good thing in a debate so this has been refuted. You never elaborated upon your point so I came up with one, it is that simple get over it accept the argument you must prove do not attempt to just now change the terms of our debate. 1) I already proved my point on this 2) So this has refuted your argument that genetics is the sole variable for that is our debate, for f you do not inherit all of your knowledge you can not inherit all of your intellect 3) Hmmm . . . I am quite certain that you could see the information's relevance to my argument and just do not want to 4) The argument is that intelligence is not solely founded upon genetics not that genetics does not play a role I went over this in the 1st round To refute his arguments all I have to say is that my 1st round set up refuted this stating that it has a role but it is not the sole role, please read your oppositions statements before you make your argument. Now to further add upon my primary arguments I shall add the following . . . The point of this debate is for you to prove that genetics is the sole contributing factor, I made it this way for you failed to elaborate your standpoint on the first round so I defined and founded my argument (that genetics are not the sole factor of intelligence) and your argument (that genetics are the sole factor of intelligence), I proved my argument and you have in essence agreed with mine for all of your points so far that. I see no need for further elaboration till you can found an argument that proves your point, till then: Intelligence is part genetic part environment . . . http://iq-test.learninginfo.org... http://kamekish.sulekha.com... http://www.edu-cyberpg.com... http://selfimprovementbase.com... And To quote from somebody on http://forum.spore.com... I shall post this: There is intelligence, which is likely to be heritable, and there is utilized intelligence - the presence of intelligence does not mean inherent wisdom or knowledge, but with the correct teaching and guidance there should be a greater capacity than those without the same level of intelligence. One could point at the arguments in many of these forums as intelligence vs lack of intelligence, whereas it would often actually be those of similar intelligence but differing environmental/educational backgrounds. It is easy to make the assumption that those of differing opinion/belief are merely stupid. And if you want to get into a matter of semantics there is no true such thing as race due to the fact D.N.A. studies show no indicators of classifiable subspecies within the human specie. http://www.scienceforums.net... http://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.nowpublic.com... http://www.iol.co.za... http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Race does not influence the individual

Since my opponent has only partially shown his standpoint I shall decide and elaborate the points of this debate . . . I am pro for this my argument is that race is not the sole factor that intellect is based. My opponent's ideas upon this subject is that race is the primary factor upon intellect and that even if the research shows that majority of blacks are educated they remain inferior. Race: subspecies: (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Intellect: mind: knowledge and intellectual ability http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Sole: lone(a): being the only one; single and isolated from others http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Factor: anything that contributes causally to a result http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... He is to prove that race is the sole factor in intelligence, and I am to prove that it is not. My first statement shall be that it is only partially due to heredity, you have a brain and the brain would not be their if it was not part of your genes, so in that sense you can also include instinctual curiosity of young ones, But the majority of your intellect is influenced by your environment and what there is to learn around you. If intelligence is solely linked to genetics it would imply genetic memory to massive degrees (not just simple child curiosity) and that when children are born they already contain the knowledge of their parents at birth but this has not been seen (and if ever seen not to significant degrees in both manners of knowledge and population). If this genetic memory were real then how come we spend time and money on schools and other such educational facilities. The simple fact of the matter is that the environment influences what you learn such as if you are raised in a poor neighborhood in which the most common means of survival is to join a gang then you are likely to join a gang, if you live in a rich neighborhood with rich people then you are more likely to behave and think like those rich people, now there are exceptions to the rule but remember that exceptions are always an minority. Remember the influence that's displayed by the quality of education for you can only learn from the information given, rich people tend to have more money spent on the curriculum they receive whereas people in poor regions tend to receive lower education, and generally used, outdated teaching tools from the richer areas. It is predominately matter of environment not genetics. http://www.edu-cyberpg.com... http://www.planetofsuccess.com... http://www.molwick.com... http://www.brainskills.co.uk... http://kamekish.sulekha.com... http://wilderdom.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://social.jrank.org... http://www.halfsigma.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.guardian.co.uk... Intelligence is part genetic part environment . . .
Race does not influence the individual

SWR has been trolling me a lot. Let's see if I can get him to shut up. His main thesis is... I don't know. But it seems to really bother him when I insinuate that race and genetics might influence individual achievement levels. My position on this topic ranges from adamant to agnostic, depending on the attribute in question. For example, I believe there is insufficient evidence to rule out a genetic or racial component to intelligence, since ceteris parabis studies are nigh impossible. I'd type more, but I'm not really expecting a coherant response. Just a lot of links and ". . ." More broadly, SuperRobatWars is a total joke, and I may consider attempting to pull off a win based entirely on ad hom arguments.
US embargo of Cuba

I would ask that all voters read the entirety of the debate and vote it on its merits. To simply appeal for votes with a "sigh" is not a reasonable argument..just a plea for votes.I have no further comments for this round as I believe the voters have the intellect to separate the environmental from the geopolitical issues. As a "Green" myself I understand..without the environment we have need of politics. Read my reply to the facetiousness of this approach as stated in my first reply to the environmental subterfuge DC has taken and PRO's swallowing of it, hook, line and sinker. I do commiserate/empathize with the sickening state of our globe and detest the political aspects that exacerbate it. That was not what this debate was about,As far as the insinuation that I am a "Troll", I promise you I feel very deeply about both issues. Enough said?I hope we can just both reply with a "Yep" in the 5th round..as we obviously agree on the most important of ALL issues...the health of our planet. Thank you for your time and pleas know that at your age I was seriously thinking of actively joining Green Peace..it was actually aderogatory nickname given to me by republican bred classmates. I would TRULY encourage PRO to join the Sea Sheppard in their "Whale Wars" project. I would if I were his age and unmarried...REALLY
US embargo of Cuba

I take umbrage at you stating "My opponent is just trolling here." HOW SO? Read the above voters..and if pro can't even spell "argument", how can he debate such an intricate and dynamic topic? As for answering your points..look in the mirror..you have not addressed mine..simplystated, you are pontificating with a green slant without demonstrating any knowledge of the truegeopolitical situation between the US and Cuba.Let the voters decide.
US embargo of Cuba

If the US were to open trade with Cuba the Cuban government may not need to grasp at China's drilling program.As you state yourself.."And as it is in Cuba's territorial waters they have the same rights as the US todo as they desire there. Finally, PRO did not answer the linchpin of my argument ..." Since when has DC placed embargoes on countries for environmental reasons?" Also PRO states " ...China and Venezuela (Check your spelling on Venezuela PRO). Of the two import Cuban oil" Care to document that source PRO??..as the last I knew Venezuela was producing more oil than it consumed. I would suggest that PRO do his homework. BTW I am a staunch ethical/financial supporter of Greenpeace and a former member of the Sierra club. I will not be lectured to on environmental issues. As stated before this matter is purely political and I would much rather debate it with an anti-Castro/Raul Cuban in Miami than with some high school kid in Topeka, Kansas..the state I was born in BTW! I will basically "waste" the rest of this round by stating "Is that the best you can do?"
US embargo of Cuba

I'll first breakdown my opponet's arguement piece by piece. It is also hypocritical following the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil DISASTER a couple years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org...... Wikipedi isn't a creditable source.My opponent lists he is "con/against" animal rights in his profile (So why are you concerned with coral reefs/marine life?) But I am getting off topic here.I'm against animal rights because I have the right to a cheese burger, but concerned about coral reefs because of how it comes back to affect me. Opponent's Cuban economy contention.My opponent's statment is false here. Most nation's in the world still actually trade with Cuba including China and Venezula. Of the two import Cuban oil, so you can see here that if we lift the embargo on Cuba it will hardly touch the Cuban economy. http://www.one.cu...;(sorry about the Spanish). My PointsMy opponent has yet to see the impacts of destroying the ecosystem by lifting the embargo, secondly he didn't touch my points so you can extend them across the board here.
US embargo of Cuba

EnvironmentYou state in your opening round that the embargo is outdated, but you are in fact incorrect. The reason that it still exists today is environmental protection. http://www.nytimes.com... The reason for the protection is because China and Cuba want to start a massive drilling project in the Gulf of Mexico. This will cause massive environmental impact and even have to lead to dredging http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu..., which will again destroy the ecosystem of the sea by destroying miles and miles of coral and an ecosystem collapse of the ocean is bad for one major reason. That reason is that it absorbs over half of the CO2 that we emit http://news.nationalgeographic.com.... Destroying that will lead to the Green House effect sky rocketing to the point of Venus. CommunismYou may think that this is a bad point, but communism is still a problem in today's world. We first put the embargo on Cuba to end the Cuban Missile Crisis and to end their reign of communism. My friends they are still communist and there is a reason on why it is bad. Just look at the other communist nation's USSR (yes I know it doesn't exist anymore), Vietnam, Cuba, and China (well somewhat). What we will see here if we lift the embargo on Cuba we'll fall into another Cold War, but this time it will be over the environment not over political idealogogies. The communist nation's have bad track records when it comes to the environment. http://www.un.org... China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela are not on track to meat the UN's demand to cut down on CO2 emissions by 2020.
The United States is a Christian Nation

To start I have to make the point all your quotes were useless to your argument as they only show that much of the population was christian and that they, along with all other beliefs, had freedom of religion. You have also failed to mention that the founding fathers were either deists or atheists so Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine and others had no religion other than deism and all had fairly harsh things to say about religion, particularly Christianity. Also keep in mind the proposition by Mason was only a proposition, it did not stay there did it now? The First Amendment clearly establishes the United States as a Secular State i.e freedom of religion, no favor for or against Christianity. Also keep in mind that for some reason it is not unconstitutional to tax churches, temples etc it just has never been done, wonder why? But perhaps that is pointless, nothing you have said or brought up showed that this state, The United States, was founded as a Christian Nation. Keep in mind a State (like the U.S) is different from a Nation (like the Kurds). And there is absolutely nothing hinting that this is a country founded on the beliefs of any particular religion the only time a god is mentioned is as the founders saw it, a deity who made everything a certain way then left it alone, Deism. Also keep in mind many of Washington's positive statements about Christianity actually did no come from him and have been found to be fakes a Christian thought must be true (article below). How do you get a Christian Nation from a state whose founders explicitly said it wasn't one, whose constitution is secular and whose founders demonized religion. I am sorry if I sound rude but you do not have anything to stand on as of now. All resources are below please view if you do not I am not responsible for fallacies you may make later. http://www.addictinginfo.org... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://thehumanist.com...
The United States is a Christian Nation

I'm not sure what to tell you. You must not have read any quotes that I put up via link. All these men explicitly said they were not Christians and Deism is not Christianity what are you talking about? They all also had some negative thing to say about Christianity which again are in the quotes (all 35 of them). They obviously had no intent on making this a Christian Nation. Also when I said I wonder why it was not unconstitutional to tax a church I meant I wonder why Christians would allow that? Also Why did Jefferson make it so clear in his own words there is a wall between church and state? And yes Jefferson did write a Bible, it excluded all of Jesus' miracles and claims to divinity and removed Jesus' slavery statements (which were pro-slavery). His idea of Jesus was an anti-rich guy who was not in anyway the son of a god. I mean the guy said "Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone on man". Paine said "The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense". Franklin said "Light houses are more useful than churches" and John Adam said this when he was president "The government of the United States Of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". But again this was all in the quotes and you said I am committing a fallacy? As in What? And also lets not forget that the 1st Amendment (which I also gave you) clearly lays down freedom of religion i.e secular and in no way hints that the U.S is a Christian nation. I mean lets get real about the founding fathers. We are talking about men who had high levels of education, hung out in France, had extremely promiscuous relationships (Franklin in particular) and all thought religion was crazy and science was the way to figure things out (Franklin big on science). I mean in their own words (that I gave you) their overall opinion of religion was poor, in particular Christianity. It seems you are simply desperate to have the motion be true so you have scraped the bottom of the barrel then accused me of doing something I did not do and twisted my words rather than present evidence to the contrary where as I brought evidence that clearly disproved yours. I would ask people vote according to the evidence here. Lets just go over the facts one more time 1. All the founders mentioned here, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Franklin, Adams and other important figures at the founding were deists or atheists and had a bad opinion of religion, especially Christianity. 2. The constitution lays out the rules for a secular country, 1st amendment here. 3. All this was confirmed by my cited sources which are then cited on those If this doesn't make it clear to those voting that the U.S is not a Christian nation, what more do you need?