Social Darwinism

Before I post my response, I would like readers to look at the webite listed below. This is where my opponent obtained the entirety of his argument. . http://antidarwinism.com...But to respond to his specific responses read below. If you read what i did say, then you will see why social-darwinism is evil. Remember that the argument was just to explain what social-darwinism is. If what you wrote was simply explanatory then besides being completely copied and pasted from another webite, it is not actually an argument. Are you saying that racism and killing handicapped, is not evil? What do you who are reading this, think? Is not killing innocent handicapped a evil thing? Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. And if I was not clear enough I will repeat. There is nothing evil about racism or killing handicapped people. Of course I am not arguing that these actions are right, as I despise them, but I do not believe that moral facts exist and so no they are not evil or good. My opponent has not brought any reason for me or the readers of this debate to think otherwise. As i can see it, you will not debate with my about if social-darwinism is wrong or not, but you will debate with me about social-darwinism being evil or not. You specifically stated in R1 that social Darwinism os evil. That is what we are debating on. However, before we can really begin we must agree on a metaethical position. In this debate you have presupposed that moral facts exist without bringing any warrant. You say that what i did just say about social-darwinism being evil, is not evil? Yes. That is what we are debating. Please, teel me what you want to debatt, and what you are not agreeing with me. We are debating what you proposed in R1, that social Darwinism is evil or that it is the "reason off all evil". But as i see it, you are saying that social-darwinism is not evil. Weel, then i will say to you that you are MAD. You who read this, decide for yourself if this is evil or notReaders should not decide for themselves, they should decide based on our arguments. And as of yet you have brought no warrant to believe that social Darwinism is evil, oter than you own personal opinion. Now to look at my opponent's points that he brings in R3.1. Social Darwinism is racist. I agree. But my opponent claimed that these actions are evil and it is that claim that still needs to be backed up.2. Social Darwinism is sexist. Again, same as point 1. I will not argue that social Darwinism is not sexist, only that being sexist is not evil or even morally wrong.3. Social Darwinism caused WW2. Do I have to repeat myself? See points 1 and 2. Con needs to show why these things are evil. My opponent then goes on to elaborate on social Darwinism's connection to Nazism. His exact plagurized words can be found here. . http://kimel.net...I thought that after the clarification I made in R2(where I asked what ethical standard my opponent would be referring to and if he could justify it) we could get past this metaethical nonsense. However my opponent repeated the exact same behavior that he had last round. He argued from common sense and copied and pasted large portions of his argument from other websites. I urge voters not to vote for me because one supports social Darwinism, but because my opponent has not brought any valid arguments against social Darwinism that he did not copy from another website.