BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped

The argument is whether or not a person should have their wins taken away. Im not saying that every person that does use a PED wins. thats not necessarily the case, what im saying is, that if they win, they didnt deserve to win. Like when playing a board game as a kid, you always yelled at the cheater. whether they won or not they either got kicked out of the game and/or banned from playing it again. Sports are becoming corrupt because of performance enhancing drugs and cheaters should not be rewarded if they win, if they lose they still deserve some type of punishment.
players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped

I would like to point out that the use of PED's does not guarantee a win. One still has to train and work out to become good at their sport. Using Lance Armstrong, do we know for a fact that 2nd place wasn't cheating? Third? Is everyone tested, or only the winner? Assuming only Armstrong was cheating, it is amazing that he only managed to win in 2003, in the middle of his streak, by a mere 61 seconds, and came in third in 2009 over five minutes behind first place, and over a minute behind second. "Juicing" does not mean you will win. . http://www.bikeraceinfo.com... Even if PED's are expressly forbidden in sports (the governing body outlaws them), why should cheating in this capacity result in sanctions, but not others? Taking a football player out of the game with a late hit might be cheating, but does it result in the team losing the game? No, it results in a fine. Why is it if I use a drug to promote muscle growth (steroids), which only has the desired effect if I put in effort, illegal, but other items that promote performance enhancing (like Gatorade) are allowed? If one team uses Gatorade, and another uses an untested electrolyte replenisher, is one cheating? Did the Gators retroactively lose the Orange Bowl in 1966, because they had Gatorade (a secret formula the school invented the year before) and the other team didn't? . http://www.gatorade.com...
players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped

Players that are convicted of using Performance Enhancing Drugs (or PED's) should have their records, accomplishments, and titles (if in a single player sport) stripped from them. The use of PED's is cheating. The most recent case about this has been Lance Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was found guilty of using a PED and was stripped of all of his Tour de France victories. This was rightfully done because, if he had not used them, then maybe someone else could've won. The use of PED's has become an infamous problem in sports and it shouldn't go without real consequences.
It is not possible to have objective moral standards without God.

Morals are a human construct. It is as a society that we have made these ethics through a form of social contract. As developmental research suggest humans are born with empathy. This means its not entirely a learned trait, however, it can be nurtured for better or worse. With the idea that empathy is natural, we can assume ethics and morals derive from our empathetic emotions. "I won't steal your things because I know how much that sucks." This is a crude example of how humans began to define morals. Humans through intelligent design can formulate ethics and morals that fit our societies. Lets take slavery for example. It is ethically wrong to own someone as a piece of property in our society now. It is also, morally wrong to kill another human being. However, during the age of slavery humans were murdered for, as little as, poor work ethic. Which, was considered acceptable because that's how society, at the time, formulated its morals and ethics. Even The Old Testament is fine with slavery, as it states "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21) Which, seems to have been a product of the morals and ethics at the time. It is only, later when revisions to the Bible made that we see slavery as evil. "Some people are born into unfair circumstances. Others are brought into them under no control of their own. Slavery is an injustice, but God is just" (James 5:7-9). Suggesting that the morals of society shifted and so too shifted the morals of god. Since, we have observed shifting morals through time like how slavery is morally and ethically wrong in our society. We can suggest that morals are changed and altered by society. Therefore, it is society that creates the moral code at which we live by. Humans make our own morals and since they differ from unique cultures we can say that objective morality is false. Since objective morality is false, we can conclude that god is a construct used to deliver the moral code humans created. Since god is a construct for morality we can derive that humans are capable of following the moral code without god being necessary. sources: https://www.richarddawkins.net... http://www.socialmorality.org... https://philosophy.stackexchange.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.developmentalscience.com... https://www.crosswalk.com... https://www.biblestudytools.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://www.biblegateway.com... https://rationalwiki.org... https://rationalwiki.org... https://www.quora.com...
It is not possible to have objective moral standards without God.

Throughout history many moral systems have existed. Many, but not all, of these systems have been based on the idea of a God. As western society increasingly rejects God and religion, especially in places such as Europe, new moral ideas without emphasis on the existence of a creator have emerged. Many view this as a way to unshackle ourselves from ancient moral systems that often depend on books containing moral advice from cultures with very different standards to our own. However many do not recognise that in doing this they are also throwing away their source of objective morals. Some even consider this a good thing but " as Ray Prebble argues in this article which I recommend reading (https://philosophynow.org...) " it leads to many unintended moral problems. The main problem with moral systems that do not rely on a creator is the is/ought problem. This states that facts about the world (is statements) have no impact on what we should do in a moral sense (ought statements). In the case of religious ethics they overcome this problem with the use of God. On a basic level this can be done using divine command theory, which essentially states that laws in a text such as the Bible are moral commands from God and are therefore what we should do. It can also be used for other types of religious ethics such as Thomas Aquinas" theory of Natural Law. This states that people should take moral action based on their God given purpose, which we can discover using reason. For example it is important for people to have a prosperous society because we are social creatures. Many atheists use this sort of logic for their morals, but without the idea that God created humans to be social creatures and therefore they should have a prosperous society, then it is simply deriving an "ought" from an "is" and is therefore a logical leap that does not make sense. It seems to me that an objective moral system is preferable, and without God this is not possible.
Can Existence Be Proven (Without Theology)

First of all its not my definition of or for the word existence . Research the definitions of what these words mean . You'll find basically the word exist means the state of actuality or condition of being . See reading too fast and not comprehending to well . Axiom or no axiom , I paraphrase to detail the definition . Whatever exists is detected by the brain and tells you it exists . Whether you choose to believe or not or accept or not . One sees with their own eyes , hears with their own ears , etc. . Sure the senses can be deceived and distort the reading to the brain . Until the brain processes it as otherwise , the person is not in truth . The person remains deceived and believed a lie or a trick . Likewise until proven different , the realist thing that is manifested to exposure is as to what it is .I tell you I'm 25 years of age but in REALITY I'm 30 years old . Why in reality am I 30? Because it is so that an ACTUAL event from 30 years ago , marked my birth date record. This has to do with what ours minds can process as genuine events. It has nothing to do with what we believe. Never stated that we believe something so therefore the ad hoc argument is , it is so or it is real . You don't believe it's so , you know it's so. Belief has to do with little to no evidence. Evidence ties in with information , facts , truth which is synonymous with correct , true actuality . That is correct about perception. It does change or can alter from individual to individual. That's when you close your laptop , I am no longer in your reality . But then to the person sitting next to me or close by , I'm still in theirs. So am I realistic or not? How can my left be your right and vice versa? It's all on the matter of perception. There are a lot of people that I have never met and have yet to meet. Do they not exist until I meet them in the future? These people have families, friends , associates that EXIST to them according to them . Are these folks I'm yet to meet, are they existent or non- existent? Ponder on that awhile . That's why I ask what do you mean when the word existence (reality) is used? How are you measuring it? What do you expect it to look like? If your speaking past beyond what our brains have a play in, it's a oxymoron. Incompatible with what our brains do in the first place.
Can Existence Be Proven (Without Theology)

Your statement that "something that occurs to be so is so" is axiomatically incorrect. If you saw a plane and thought it to be a bird it would not be a bird simply because it occurs to you that you see a bird. Your inverse statement is also false, if you do not believe planes to be real it does not disprove their existence. You cannot state that reality exists because we perceive it because our perception of reality is not permanent. If you hold in your hands a pencil you, by your definition of actuality, you know that it exists. But if you were to place the pencil out of your sight, by your definition again, the pencil would no longer exist because no one would be empirically perceiving it. Your statement "that would have existence proven" depends on the clause stating that "we know for sure that that reality is genuine as well" which you failed to prove in the first place. You say that "existence is nothing more than what our brains are exposed to," but if a human was born deprived of all senses your definition of the existence of reality would not extend to them yet reality would still exist beyond their capability to perceive it. You cannot say that reality is contingent on the perception of the beholder because their perception is not permanent. In this same vein, and in attempt to stay germane to the proposed topic, as I see the text you wrote on my screen I empirically perceive you, but if I were to close my laptop, and no longer empirically perceive you, you would vanish from the very threads of existence. Therefore, you have not proven that you exist by your own definition of existence.
Can Existence Be Proven (Without Theology)

Yes I assert my existence because I am here . Exist means a state of actuality or a state of being. Meaning that something that occurs to be so is so . What is so is so . That's because our brains have processed the information as such . Anything that is not real or processed by our brains to not be real has been indicated to us as not being so or has not truly happened or occurred. What's real and true by definition is the very state of being. The essence of being is broadcasted to the mind to detect the physical properties or properties of its nature in which we are able to identify its presence . This is all what reality is to us, so by that definition we can say of course everything exists as pertaining to what we can recognize . Now in a different perspective, let's say the faculties of the mind are deactivated . We are able to determine that the brain was actually having a view of an illusion. The illusion was shaped , molded and crafted in a differentiated manner. So that would have existence proven right there if we know for sure that that reality is genuine as well . See the lines can become blurred of where reality begins and ends . Stepping outside of one consciousness to another . Unless we have infinite knowledge , how do we know from that situation we haven't reached the pinnacle external realm of all realms . Just speaking hypothetically we say that we have infinite ability and that we are all knowing like a god to attest so . But since all the information thus far there is concerning brain function and capacity the brain would have an inability to do more than go past the confines of itself. Existence is nothing more than what our brains are exposed to so in that light it's proven . Going past that light is a can of worms . So my position is contingent on the perspective of the one whom holds the question .
Can Existence Be Proven (Without Theology)

How else can existence be proven but by empirical , physical elements . The five senses as they say that us humans have to detect this reality . How do we know outside of our consciousness what really is and what really isn't ? We don't know. Our only business is to know what's inside of our awareness. That's all awareness is for. Like the saying " out of sight , out of mind". Even the depiction of the tree that falls in the woods that nobody standing in the woods hears. How do we know what's real ? How do we know what's true ? How do we define real and a true existence? It's all in the mind and the very definitions are also . Another saying is your as young as you feel . Again that's referring to a mental state . See something can only be as real as the mind interprets it. Anything outside of that is really meaningless . Just like we can only interpret and understand within the realms of logic. Anything outside of that , like before time or what was there before what we see as being an existence now is unfathomable . So can we prove that everything truly exists or not outside of our thinking capacities? No. As we can grasp , the brain functions as it has been designed to work with only with what it's capable of working with. Depending on how reality is defined and the things of reality that exist to the mind , wouldn't it mean that everything that occurs in sensory of the mind be declared a real existence simply by the brain processing it as such in its proper function to do so? This gets deeply profound and enriching , particularly when shifting perspectives.
god cant be real, because to feel joy one must be able to feel pain

Well, this is obviously a troll debate. I am clearly wasting my time. My opponent is giving half hearted answers and is not putting forth any points. Anyway, first my opponent says God is not real. Then, he says God is dead. If God is not real, God cannot be dead. If God is dead, then God is real. My argument now is God is real and he is defienitely not dead. I support this claim by my own observation that this world and all its complex creations were made by God and we are all here for a higher purpose. That's all.
FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of "news."

As Roy mentioned, this statement was made in the context provided by the link, and any semantical degradation from our exchanges should be anchored to that discussion. FOx is guilty of - (sorry for the organization, there is a fair amount of overlap in here) 1. lying. How can one justify the commentary in this link? {http://www.youtube.com...} The news anchor says that "marijuana WILL KILL you." Anti-drug sentiment is a hardy component of conservative principles. How do I know this? Easy; look at Fox news and conservative radio. They all agree on it. If you ask Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Palin, Savage, Levin, Reagan... You're not going to get any more than one answer. Roy is going to attempt to differentiate the more problematic elements (i.e., O'Reilly) from main-stream FOX in an effort to say FOX has both an entertainment and a news portion. But this is just part of the manipulation. How is your average Joe supposed to know the difference? Does FOX come on and say "...and now, for entertainment purposes only... the views expressed herein do not represent FOX news or its affiliates..."? Of course not. Fox wishes to manipulate the viewer into thinking these figures are legitimate. The fact that all these figures have practically the exact thing to say on all political issues is key that they are all working in tandem, 2. pushing a narrow agenda under the guise of a "fair and balanced" news source. Who is worse than FOX? Roy can point to Olberman and Matthews and say "they do it too," but MSNBC and CNN haven't actually gone out and hired active politicians like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin to help them report. Furthermore, FOX's lineup is hardcore partisan and cannot be compared to ANYTHING else. O'Reilly, Levin, Hannity, Beck, Palin... How could any other station compete with this partisanship? The problem I have with FOX is that it manipulates the people into thinking it is an objective news source when it clearly is not. FOX's existence depends on coercion and manipulation, and it has always been that way. Consider this article about how FOX intervened in Nazi Germany during the 1930ss to help get Hitler elected (http://tarpley.net...). This is admittedly just a "website" but the paper that is written is well sourced. FOX has and always will be simply an instrument of coercion by right-wing xenophobes. Right-wingers by nature need coercion to exist, because their policies and ideas do not yield equity for the masses - only the ones already in a position of wealth. FOX and its followers attack "mainstream media" because mainstream media does not purport right-wing propaganda. Evolution, for example, is problematic for right-wingers because it loostens Christianity's hold on Americans; a religion that holds many people in firm check on the right side of the aisle. RIght-wingers therefore put forth that reporting on evolution and accepting it as fact is simply the left-wing stance on the issue, in which the main-stream media purports unjustifiably.
FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of "news."

Pro made the claim of the resolution in comments on another Fox News debate. http://www.debate.org... This debate provides Pro an opportunity to attempt to prove his claim. Pro must prove that Fox News is vicious, nasty, and manipulative, and that Fox worse in these regards than any other significant news outlet ever to arise in the United States. I will argue the Con position. The context of Pro's claim did not suggest any special terminology, so dictionary definitions of the key words in the resolution apply. Each side will have three rounds of arguments, beginning with Pro. The last round will be a "pass" by Pro to keep the space even.
FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of "news."

You know what Roy... You are right. I just saw an ad by a local NBC station that deliberately targeted the Republicans' TV ads as negative (with no mention to the Dems) and then starting playing clips of people telling how they aren't going to pay attention to these negative Republican ads. There is no excuse to single out a single party for negative ads when both parties are clearly doing it, and with this type of activity going on I cannot just continue to hurl stones at FOX even if it seems like they are more blatant in their bad reporting from my political vantage point. I was watching this ad while I was typing up my second round argument, so it had a strong effect on me. It's useless to attack one party for what both parties do and, for the most part, the worst stuff is done by both parties - and their respective news stations. I'll still have plenty to disagree with you on in the future though Roy so don't get comfortable.
FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of "news."

Whether something is "mean, nasty, and manipulative" is mainly an issue of style. Consider: "Listen up you dumb ****. The square of the hypotenuse IS equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. If you don't agree you are foul and evil, and probably a child molester." That is mean, nasty, and manipulative even though the part about triangles is true. In this debate, Pro has offered nothing about Fox News that meets the definition of mean, nasty, and manipulative. Fox did quote a Dug Enforcement Agency official with less skepticism then they probably should have, but that is an issue of good reporting not being nasty. I offered evidence of two examples of "things" in news that do meet the terms of the resolution, and are legitimate candidates for being the worst in the history of the Republic. Soon after the Bill of Rights was adopted, there was a surge in slanderous journalism. In our times, the rise of Internet has brought about new adventures in nasty "news." I'm not arguing that the Internet as whole is a negative, but mean and nasty is definitely part of the package. Pro argued that somehow my examples should not count, but both clearly meet the intent of the resolution. If bad reporting is supposed to count as meeting the resolution, then the New York Times is worse than Fox. Their false series of fifty front page articles implying that Abu Ghraib was official policy encouraged terrorism and probably cost innocent lives. Their false reporting on McCain did not turn the election, but it had a significant impact. The Fox marijuana story had no measurable impact. Whatever Fox Movie Studios did in the 1930's is irrelevant. There is nothing in common but the name. Pro forfeited the last round; I claim that is a conduct violation, akin to walking out in the middle of face-to-face debate. Pro does deserve some credit for showing up to at least start a debate of his remarks. Under the terms of the debate, he must pass and not argue in this round. that provides us each equal space. The resolution is negated.
Cut foreign aid to the middle east

The entire basis of your argument this whole time has been to COMPLETELY cut off foreign aid to the Middle East. Now you are saying that humanitarian aid will continue. What I don't think you understand is that all of that money has to go through the government to reach the people. The governments in that region are very strict about financial aid. I also pointed out that, as of late, more precautions have been installed to prevent funding of terrorists. That does not mean that it works perfectly every time. The fact that you are just now bringing up the unwavering installment of humanitarian aid means that, while you may have been thinking about the personal side of things, you didn't say it, and I'm only able to base my responses on what I receive from you. Your arguments sound like they were written as a narrative for an English class. This is great, except that this is a debate, where personal opinion shapes the side we support, and where the conveyance of these opinions shape our entire arguments. I hope you understand that the only personal connections you have made were hateful and not helpful to your argument at all. I hope that my point has gotten through and that the judges will consider my argument worthy of acceptance. Thank you.