BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Moral Argument is Sound

As I have forfeited this debate, I guess the only thing i can do is just point out that Pro has not been her more than a month and calls himself an expert and knows exactly what DDO represents and how it works. Seeing as how he has only had one debate and it is still in the voting period with a 3 point margin, I guess we can all say he is the top contender here on DDO.I will lose this debate and I don't care. Vot for him, because he made a better arguement, don't vote for him because he asked you to. Pro thinks he is all that and a bag of chips, just like WLC and that is not ad hom, that is factual observation.So in conclusion, my morality to leave this debate is objective, but there is no God who influenced it. I made this moral decision for myself. There is no proof of an god(s) so how can there be one to create morals? Logical fallacy on the part of the individual who came up with these lame arguments that defeat themselves.
The Moral Argument is Sound

RemarksCon pleads with the voters that this is a farce. But the comedy is on his end. The moral argument stands. He says he doesn't' care if you vote or not then says not to vote twice... which should we do? I think the decision is clear. Vote Pro since Con surrendered. Theoretical Moral ArgumentArguments extended Practical Moral ArgumentArgument extendedConclusionCon forgets that this is DDO, debates take place in both the comments section (but mostly trash talk ;-) as well as in the forums and the debates... I'm glad I'm the one to welcome Con to this world of fire- he was thrown to the wolves and lost.
The Moral Argument is Sound

As the instigator has chosen to debate mostly in th comments and went completely off topic in his second round argument, we are arguing the Morality argument NOT evidence for God or the Ontological Argument. As this debate is a farce with ad hominem attacks, wheter indirectly from both sides, I declare this debate to be moot.I may not supplied sources like my opponent and I may have given very little in the way of defense for my side, but I don't care which way you vote if you do.I do ask that you do not vote for either of us and let this farce end where it is. I am forfeiting and will accept defeat if warranted. Last, I want to be able to debate on here in the proper way and not in the comments section or in forums where the instigator prefers. Again, I would ask that no one vote on this debate at all.
The Moral Argument is Sound

This is a bad excuse, but my browser keeps shutting down and I keep loosing everything. I am just going to refute the Moral Argument and ignore the Apologetics you presented.1) If objective moral values and duties don’t exist, then God doesn’t exist (NC)Replace "God" with any other noun and you will see how this premise defeats itself and fails completely.2) Objective moral values and duties exist (FC)Who says? Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, who?3) Therefore God existsNow take the noun you used in the first premise and replace "God" here. Does it still make sense?This argument is flawed from the beginning.To claim that you must believe in a god to have objective, subjective or arbitrary morality is akin to saying, "You must believe there is a Santa Clause or else there are no presents" Show me where an atheist is any more amoral than theists and I will sell you ocean front property in Idaho for $5!I will post citations and give links, if needed, in the next round.
The Moral Argument is Sound

If god is internal and only can be felt through personal means, then it is a biological manifestation of the mind. As with eye witness testimonies, very few can be validated as truth. How many people were found guilty just off of eye witness accounts only and out of those, how many were innocent? http://apps.americanbar.org... Because of this, how are we to take the word of a theist who claims to have eye witness testimony to anything in their religious views? That being said, it is logical to presume that morality is a concept developed over time through evolution of the human species. In the past where it was moral acceptable to stone your wife for adultery, it is not morally acceptable today. Same thing with slavery and killing your first born. If a God created objective morals in the past, how come they have changed in the more than 6000 years the Juedeo Christian God has been around? Morality is man made as is God. Morality has been around before man created god and it is sure to be around after it's death and with many new changes to what it is and how it is perceived. As for the conclusion, it doesn't matter since I already forfeited, but the Pro did not come up with a conclusion for his Morality argument, only for his proof of god tangent. Sorry, but if you still want to vote, I propose I get atleast a little credit for continuing till the end and actually staying on topic. :P
Your marks and grades are not the only measures of your intellect

I accept this challenge. Good luck to my opponent. Also I'm on mobile at the time of writing this, so forgive me if my formatting comes out horrible lol. But now, onto the topic. What you mentioned is a common fallacy. Your idea sounds great in words but it does not work practically. Yes, there are amazing people who are great at computer hacking, sports, and more, but these kinds of people are rare. There are geniuses who dropped out of school to pursue their dreams, and they were successful because they were geniuses who knew exactly what they wanted to do in life. However, the general populace is not full of geniuses. It is full of average people, and that is why we have school, to equip the average people with the knowledge and skill they need to build this nation. The purpose of school is to give you a base, so you can learn other things. Intelligence comes in many different forms. You are saying that marks don't affect intellect, but you go on to prove that by using geniuses as an example, which doesn't work because schools are built for the general populace, and the average person is not a genius. School has opened up your mind to other forms of intellect. You mentioned chess, it would be very hard to learn chess if you are not literate. You also mentioned computer hacking. A computer hacker does not know how much of a good computer hacker he is until he actually learns about computers. If he goes to school he can take a programming course, and discover his hidden talent. Marks do affect your intellect. They show how much effort you have put into a given subject, and how well you did. Thanks and good luck.
Your marks and grades are not the only measures of your intellect

IS IT REALLY ENOUGH TO LOOK AT YOUR MARKS TO ESTIMATE YOU CAPABILITIES??? Your marks and grades are just measures of your understanding on what you grasp when in school. But when it comes to your intellect it may vary. Marks and grades is one way to measure a person"s intellect if his aptitude lies there. But some people may be horrible in school work yet be extremely brilliant at computer hacking or game such as chess football etc. Examples are countless; let us start with the great Sachin Tendulkar who was a 10th dropout himself as he was busy with the India Pakistan series. But let us not dwell on examples for now. Just imagine you are a miracle when it comes to the art of computer hacking but when it comes to your grades you are not up to the mark. But in some rare cases people have been praised due to their report card showing a high score but personally he must have memorized the material instead of understanding the concepts which is the basic idea of education to apply what you learn in your everyday life although your understanding may not result in good grades it may help I your future life. Therefore my friends I would like to conclude myself by saying that this system of underestimating a child or overestimating a child by looking into his marks & grades is just wrong or i believe so
Mothers should stay at home and look after the children

But you see that there are a great myriad of examples when children were being brought up by moms for more than 7 years even till their maturity. Then in the result we got quite independent people who can stand up for themselves in the society and who will never forget about careless upbringing and they wiil take care of their moms without any doubt in comparison with those people who were not raised by moms for example in the time of pubescence properly
Mothers should stay at home and look after the children

But I don't mean that we should change our gender roles. Nowadays we can hire nurses for example and then mothers can continue to work. I think mothers should stay at home till a certain age (maybe till 7 years old), because if mothers stay at home longer, then children become dependent people. Mothers give to their children excessive care and then children get used to do nothing themselves because mothers always do everything instead of their children.
Mothers should stay at home and look after the children

But if mothers work, it doesn't mean that they can't take care for their children. It means that they shouldn't spend all time at home. Mothers can mix a job with a family. For instance, my mother worked when I was 5 years old and I didn't feel loneliness. She could give attention for both sides. Also, women should help to men with family finances. It is difficult to earn money for family for one person and also family's cash income will be higher.
Mothers should stay at home and look after the children

You see that there is a little thing like a maternal instinct, invisible connection only between child and mom not amongst fathers for instance. Also, even the best nurse is not a mom, is not a closest person in your life. He does not pay enough attention to children's problems. Ok, they listen to it properly and advice something but do not devote themselves into tackling the problem thoroughly like a mom like a parents. The most essential and wise advice stem from moms undoubtedly. And all this deals about stress and something like this do not have a high-priority importance like a real native support from mom till children create their own life
Mothers should stay at home and look after the children

Of course, there are many exceptions! However, I have this point of view not only because of children's up bringing, but also because of mothers' interests. The statistic shows that mothers who stay at home and don't work, are subjected to stress stronger, because they have uneventful life. Mothers don't have communicative that they can receive in a job and also they think that they haven't self-realized. So I think that they should do something else apart from staying at home because it can influence on their health.
Evolution V Creation

Ok good point but how do you explain the variety of life over millions of years, the ice age the age of marsupials. Most of the animals that came after the extinction of the dinos would be completely under prepared to survive the more hostile weather conditions as the earth went through it's cycle. And why do we find different fossils throughout the fossil layer obviously the older bones are toward the bottom, and more resent bones toward the top, if there was no evolution shouldn't we find mammoth bones on the same level with dinosaurs, and find giant cave sloths on the same level with saber tooth cats? See we as humans have the collective ability to create the reason why cars don't occur in nature is because steal, plastic, and rubber don't naturally occur in nature, however once again what makes up the basics of your anatomy can be found in nature. And your right the theory has holes, but so does creation First if god made the world then why doesn't he keep improving it Second why has god not made himself visible to the people who don't believe if he truly wanted us to believe creation that would fix the problem real fast Third tell me why we haven't found fossils of current animals like cows in the same layer with say mastodons? Fourth please give me any proof of god making animals because right now your argument is a car can't make it's self, the flaw with this statement is that a car isn't alive or self reproducing that's why there aren't herds of SUVs on the plains. However we have found species of bacteria that are found no other place on earth if evolution were false shouldn't they be everywhere? A good example of this is the blood falls in the Arctic, a flow of water coming up through the ice, the water is stained red from rust and a new species of bacteria that eat the rust, this species hadn't been documented before, so please explain that for me. https://en.wikipedia.org... The reason we teach evolution is because it is universal, how ever all cultures have their own story of creation what makes yours right? In viking mythology the world was shaped from the body of a giant named Ymir how do we know this is right if your story of creation is true why can't this one be true?
Evolution V Creation

Time magazine, while saying that there are "many solid facts" backing the evolution theory, nonetheless concedes that evolution is a complex tale with "many holes and no shortage of competing theories on how to fill in the missing pieces." ON September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol... "Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth," Kristol said, "it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact." Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. Take Finches for example, a bird with varying beak sizes and shapes but still pertain to the same species, even though having different physical qualities. As you mentioned with the fish, changing a specific part of the body does not mean it can become an entirely new species on its own. Natural selection is presumed to be overestimated in its capabilities. Rather than creating a new species, it improves the species itself, not change it. Meanwhile, the beginning of life is still a hypothesis. As well, if you believe we can"t create inferior objects as cars, but expect to believe that beings as brilliant and complex as humans could be made on accident, there is much to question in this understanding. Rather, such complex ecosystems such as the water cycle, and systems such as cell replication, can not have occurred alone. If we believe that only a human can create a car, and it can"t create itself, then something much more intelligent and Superior must have created a human being.
Evolution V Creation

True but cars are a man made thing steal doesn't naturally occur, how ever what makes up the human body's basic parts, carbon, water, calcium, are naturally occurring. And adaptation is what drives evolution. Lets say a fish get trapped in a cave with a few hundred of its relatives, due to the lack of light the fish with better sensory organs other than sight are they ones that survive. These fish breed due to the lack of use the fishes eyes wither and eventually disappear completely. This leads to a new species of cave fish thus evolution in action.
Abolish Social Security

You started off your argument with the following contentions: "Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. " First off, you're right, social security will not advance us as a country. However, neither is it necessarily a bad thing. Many people, this might come off as rude, are stupid. They don't know how to invest, so if left to their own devices, as you suggested, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Social Security was started for this reason. Second, You said that America will not be able to support it. This is not necessarily true. While more people will be retiring than employing, you have to take into account that you are referring to the baby boom generation, where fewer kids were born. Unless we have another generation like that, Social Security could be sustained, so long as people actually start to get jobs. The system for Social Security is sound, the problem is the people. Without it, people would complain that the government isn't helping them if they aren't working, but but with it, no one works, they retire early or something, if people got jobs and kept them, and didn't retire at a young age, then we could sustain it. The problem is when people aren't keeping their jobs for a long time, or when they retire early. Third, you said that people should be able to invest their own money. I would like to point out that Social Security is not mandatory, as stated in Wikipedia: "Obtaining a Social Security number for a child who is not working is voluntary. Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program. " So if you desire, you can go invest elsewhere, it isn't necessary to be a part of the program, most people just choose to be. You said that the money is not invested or saved at all, but in Wikipedia, it says: "When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U. S. Government bonds". So there is money saved, not all of it is immediately spent. And you're right, it can't be fixed, because like I said, the system is sound. it's the people who retire early, and possibly how much is being given out that is the problem. Now be honest. If you were given (for example) an extra twenty thousand dollars per year due to no Social Security, would you invest it? For you maybe yes, maybe no. I would. But a lot of people wouldn't. They would spend it. Then they would retire and have no money, and complain that the government isn't helping them out after their retirement.
Carolina vs. Kansas

Ah ha but you forgot to say that all of your points mostly come from your starters while if you look at Carolina we're a balanced team and I'll show you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 Tyler Hansbrough... 38-38 1250 32.9 283-522 .542 0-6 .000 299-371 .806 145 245 390 10.3 90 0 34 80 13 57 865 22.8 22 Wayne Ellington.... 38-37 1181 31.1 229-486 .471 77-186 .414 94-114 .825 39 129 168 4.4 59 0 78 63 6 41 629 16.6 05 Ty Lawson.......... 31-28 782 25.2 138-264 .523 29-81 .358 92-111 .829 14 70 84 2.7 55 0 163 68 1 51 397 12.8 14 Danny Green........ 38-1 848 22.3 155-330 .470 53-141 .376 69-79 .873 66 122 188 4.9 88 3 77 69 46 47 432 11.4 21 Deon Thompson...... 38-37 811 21.3 140-291 .481 0-0 .000 41-70 .586 74 109 183 4.8 89 1 41 52 51 27 321 8.4 01 Marcus Ginyard..... 38-38 1067 28.1 98-219 .447 12-28 .429 63-97 .649 74 98 172 4.5 78 1 83 61 3 42 271 7.1 32 Alex Stepheson..... 36-0 529 14.7 69-127 .543 0-0 .000 21-47 .447 65 103 168 4.7 75 2 7 34 32 6 159 4.4 04 Bobby Frasor....... 12-1 195 16.3 13-38 .342 9-30 .300 3-6 .500 2 20 22 1.8 9 0 25 10 2 12 38 3.2 11 Quentin Thomas..... 36-9 574 15.9 43-76 .566 Obvousley we are a more balanced team than you because I look at Kansas' bench and they score around 15 of your points while our scores around 35 thus we can beat you with anyone while you'll have to play your starters and tire them out to the point when you lose it.
Carolina vs. Kansas

Now it gets interesting. You said Carolina has perimeter shooting but Kansas' is better with 4 guys including Rush shoot over.500% from 3-point land. Also we do have a inside game with Kaun who puts up 18 points close to Hansboro. Also if Rush is shut down we have Arthur, Darrell,15 Chalmers, Mario,32 Jackson, Darnell... ,04 Collins, Sherron... ,and 03 Robinson, Russell... all scoring over 25 points a game. As for Davidson they were a good and could of beaten you. Finally we score 80 points a game and let up around 70 so we can hang with you.
Carolina vs. Kansas

1. Around 20 of their 80 average points come from fast-breaks which means Carolina can play with Kansas the whole game. 2. Kansas' perimeter shooting. Well so does Carolina with Wanye Ellington shooting .414% from behind the arc which is amazing plus Macrus Ginyard and others shooting over .385% from three-point land. Plus Carolina has Hansboro who can dominant from the inside and draw fouls which will put Kansas in trouble. 3. Brandon Rush will dominate Carolina. This is simply untrue Carolina can either double team or Wanye Ellington, Ty Lawson, and or Quientin Thomas can shut him down. Now I ask MY OPPONENT who will step up for Brandon Rush? Also Kansas almost lost to Davidson a few days ago and if they almost lost last time to a weaker team than Carolina how will they beat them. Finally Carolina scores an average 90 points a game and only give up 72 points to a opponent that's a +18 point difference for Carolina so they should wipe Kansas.
That the US government is responsible for 9/11

Since my opponent is harassing me about having too much evidence stacked against him, I shall not continue my argument or rebut his (except to say, if it isn't obvious, that if other materials in a firework can make a sound, so can the other materials in the WTC). Obviously I'd like to address the last flight but appreciate my opponent's concern. This will allow him to get around the character limit problem he has been having.
That the US government is responsible for 9/11

I’d like to start by thanking my opponent for keeping me in mind and issuing this challenge. Burden of proof: AcceptedRules: AcceptedDefinitions: US government - Pro states that even a single officer having knowledge of the terrorist plot constitutes the government’s responsibility for the attacks. However to my knowledge the US did in fact posses the intelligence that may have been necessary to prevent them. In light of this apparent agreement, I would like to suggest the following adjustments:Planning: the organizational process of creating and maintaining a plan; and the psychological process of thinking about the activities required to create a desired goal on some scale. Pro contends that an officer having knowledge of the events and failing to inform others is planning the events, however based on this definition I would accept that it could be considered planning if proven based on probabilities, that the officer(s) in question knowingly withheld information with the intent of allowing the plot to take place. Responsible: Accepted9/11: AcceptedWith this change I hope that my opponent accepts the adjusted resolution.