BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

Hi Marc, I just read your response. I am very impressed what you have just said to me, about how the Taliban lies to the children and that anyone who puts a child in harms way is unmoral and it should not be done at all. I do agree that children shouldn't be harmed, they are innocent and don't deserve to die obviously because they are so young and are basically helpless in the end. But the thing here marc is that. this is war, and during war a country/nation/organization has to due whatever it is necessary to win the battle. The Taliban are strong in what they believe in and will do anything to come out on top of the battle, that has to do with even hurting children, because im sure American troopers have harmed little kids before in the past, when they didn't deserve to die or even get hurt. In the video, at 16;45, the narrator says that Angar, a suicide bomber has been trained to carry out suicide bombs for the Taliban. So my question to u marc is that even though yes, kids shouldn't be put in harms way, some of these children do actually know what there doing. So I don't actually think these kids should be looked as innocent, because a lot of times they do know exactly what there doing, I just provided u an excellent answer to why its not that bad as how the Taliban use suicide bombers, these kids are willing to go to war and go through with violent acts. How do you feel about this valid reasoning that I showed you with kids willing to go to war and to put themselves in harms way?
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

War is a very strong word and it is a terrible event to happen. America is in war now with Afghanistan, and they found a new strategy, suicide bombing, but they include children in the attacks now which is sickening to hear in my opinion. At 14:13 the narrator says that children pass the checkpoints for easily to go pass searches and they move more easily throughout the city. At 15:05 he says that the children are picked for the suicide attacks because they have no religious knowledge, they are young so they do not know as much as the adults do. He also says a child who read and studied the Quran, would not kill themselves, they may enter the war and fight, but would not commit suicide. At 15:35 the guy says since they are young and do not know much they are told lies, they are told explosives are not strapped to their chest, its secret documents. This is very sad in my opinion because how do these people just let these innocent little children commit suicide. It is not just a few children it is happening so often over there in Afghanistan now. Even in their school systems the teachers tell them commit suicide in order to go to paradise, they do not teach them too much of the Quran. One of the head leaders of the taliban and he says that the war will intensify day by day if operations continue. Also, basically he also said he supports suicide bombing because it gets the job done. People said if they read the Quran they would know not to kill. How do these people even call themselves muslims? These people are using children and it is sickening to watch. My guess as to why they use children is because it is easier to carry out the mission because no one would think a child is going to do anything harmful. In my opinion, I am very against the way these people carry out what they do, I believe bringing little children and harming them is disturbing to hear. They have no idea what is going on, and they are told lies at such a young age and it is very sad to hear what happens to them.
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

In this debate, the big topic here is about suicide bombers and if its ethical or unethical. In my personal opinion, I am pro for this sticky situation, there are many reasons to support this claim. For my first reason It is that these teenage kids do not have knowledge of what is happening, I have evidence for this because a security guy from Afghanistan said that a lot of kids don't have knowledge of what is going on. It is said in the video, "VICE on HBO Season One: Killer Kids (Episode 1) " at time 15:30. the man said "kids don't have enough knowledge of what is happening." So my argument here is that if they don't understand what is happening then what's the big deal. Even though, yes they are dying in the end, but they aren't suffering, and they think there doing a good deed by helping this organization out. My second reason is that they children who are suicide bombers have the choice to dentate the bomber, they are the one's who are setting it off, even when they don't "tehcnequally know" they hear about suicide bombs happening everyday so maybe it is possible they do know what they are doing any carry out with there actions anyway. That is why I don't understand why people are so against the Taliban's suicide bombers, even though they are promoting it, they don't physically carry out the action of the actual bomb exploding. Also at 16:00 the security guy said that some of them do know any hit the switch anyway because they think there are the ones who are surviving when really they aren't. But still some of these children know they are taking out violent actions and go through with it anyway. This is why I am for it, its an act of war and whenever a country goes to war they kill children if its accidental or not so that's why I think people of this world shouldn't look at it so badly.
God Exists

Resolved: God ExistsGod: The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Senteint Tri Omni Mind (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) who is the Creator of the Universe. Atheism: The Lack of belief in God(s) Structure R1: Opening information and Pro's opening arguments R2: My rebuttal and Pro's response R3: My response and Pro's closing response R4: My closing response. Since Pro is arguing in round 1, in round 4 Pro will put "For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed." Rules No forfeits No insults No semantics 72 Hours to Post Argument 8000 Characters Max 10 Day Voting Period Start your arguments in Round 1
Does the "occupy" protest movement have a clear and common message

First I like to define the terms "clear", "common", and "message". Clear - easy to understand, or easy to see or hear (1) Common -belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question (2) Message- a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, radio, telephone, or other means. (3) In order for me to affirm the resolution I have to show that the Occupy Wall Street movement has a clear and common message. My case The Occupy movement has stated that they are against the abuses of Wall Street as they felt they are the ones responsible for the economic crisis. (4) Also that are sending a message that they are against the growing inequality in the US. (5) Rebuttal: "Occupy protests lack common/coherent message" This is not correct. I have already shown that they have a clear common message. Not only that, polls show that it is resonating with the public. They do not like Wall Street and against income inequality. (6) (7) "Occupiers should protest White House not Wall Street. " One may disagree about whom they should protest against. However, my opponent has not how his source shows how this relates to their message or whether it is being affected "Occupiers should be protesting timid financial reforms. " Again, one may disagree about what or whom they should protest but this does not show what this have to do about their message. "Occupy protests ineffective; Wall Street bankers don't care" This too is not relevant. A person can have a clear and common, message with or without people caring. "Occupy protests can't sway Congress due to lack of message" This is also incorrect as I have shown that they do have a message, it is clear and it is being shared by the public. "Occupy protesters are mostly hooligans and anarchists. " They maybe hooligans and anarchists, maybe not. However, the source my opponent uses is another's personal opinion and does not state if or how the Occupiers message is being effected. Conclusion: I have shown that Occupy Wallstreet does have a common and clear message. My opponents arguments does not effectively show that they do not. I like to thank my opponent again for debate. It's been great! :) Sources: (1) . http://dictionary.cambridge.org... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). http://www.csmonitor.com... (5). http://www.bloomberg.com... (6). http://www.boston.com... (7). http://www.phillytrib.com...
In the United States, Minor Jail Time Ought to be Replaced with Significant Rehabilitation.

There are a couple ways to understand this resolution - I understand it to mean jail time for individuals under 18. In the case of individuals under 18, the severity of the crime and age of the individual should of course be taken into consideration. For example, it's not quite logical to force a six year old to go to therapy for a year for stealing a hundred dollar bill... The main reasons we would want to use rehabilitation instead of jail time are as follows: 1) Putting people in jail for minor crimes unnecessarily crowds jails. 2) For minors, rehabilitation may be a more effective crime deterrent. 3) Rehabilitation saves tax money and benefits society. Putting children in juvenile detention unnecessarily crowds the centers. It's not necessary for rehabilitatible children to sit in jail and do nothing. Jail is for those persons who can't be rehabilitated and need to be removed from society for society's own protection. If a child CAN be rehabilitated, there is no reason to send him to jail instead of therapy with house arrest or something similar that actually attempts to correct bad behavior, not simply punish it. For minors, it's possible that rehabilitation may be a more effective deterrent to crime. Like I said before, jail time is a punishment. Therapy may actually modify their behavior. It makes much more sense that someone who understands what was wrong with their behavior and doesn't desire to commit a crime again is less likely to do so than a person who has simply sat in jail for a while, stewing over their punishment and angry. Lastly, rehabilitation saves tax money that would be spent towards keeping an individual in jail. My opponent will no doubt argue that paying for therapy is expensive and a drain on tax dollars. However, it would be quite simple to put the burden of the therapy on the criminal, not society. In special cases where the criminal simply cannot pay for therapy, then the state can send the individual to state-sponsored counseling, much in the same way the state guarantees right to legal counsel. Also, therapy produces much more productive members of society than jail time does. It's true that occasionally, someone will "find Jesus" in jail and be a much better person, but by and large, people in jail are rough-and-tumble when they come out. Rehabilitated people are much more compatible with society writ large. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation a new society is created. it consists of new born to 30 year olds. only the best and the brightest 500 people from society are picked. intelligence and physical attributes. they do genetic testing on the people to ensure diseases and problems indicated by genes and family history are rooted out. eighteen to thirty year olds are permitted to breed. then the population of five hundred would be permitted to expand to five thousand. then by the time it got to five thousand, for each member that reaches 18, two are removed until the population goes back down to five hundred. this method of expansion and retraction would be put on repeat. when a parent shows that it later develops a disease, that can disqualify the offspring as well. eventually, this would lead to speciation.
Homosexuality is a perversion

The resolution is "Homosexuality is a perversion." He offers definitions of perversion that include "various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal," and "a change to what is unnatural or abnormal." The first definition has to do with "what is considered unnatural." Science has established that humans encompass a spectrum of behaviors that are normal for the species. What people consider abnormal depends on the times. Pro has the burden of proving that people now consider homosexually outside of the range that is natural and normal. He might, for example, have offered up a poll, but he did not produce any such evidence. No one thinks that homosexuality is as common as heterosexuality, but people today are sophisticated enough to recognize the distinction between "uncommon" and "perverted." In California the constitution grants equal legal rights to homosexuals, but maintains the traditional meaning of the word "marriage." That shows considerable sophistication in recognizing the distinction between "uncommon" and "perverted." Pro claims that any election that does not endorse gay marriage proves that it is considered abnormal, and hence a perversion. This assumes that people are voting based upon condemnation of perversion rather than upon the traditional definition of heterosexual marriage. He offers no evidence that is the case. Pro's second definition concerns "what is unnatural." Pro claimed he would show homosexuality is "against natural laws of reproduction and the human psych[e]." To prove they are unnatural he said he would show that homosexual acts are "a psychological disorder." I disagreed with this second definition. I pointed out that there are things like asexuality that are as unnatural as homosexuality, but not considered perversions. I also disputed the claim directly. I provided evidence that homosexuality was within the normal spectrum of behavior, and that the American Psychological Society took the official position that it was not a mental disorder. Pro presented no contrary scientific evidence. In this round, Pro claimed that "Homosexual[ity] is abnormal even [in] nature." He contrasts homosexuality with masturbation, which while once considered a perversion is, he says, proved not so by its being observed in nature. Homosexuality, however, is in fact common in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org... It has been observed in over 200 species of mammals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I explained why it was natural. Pro says, "Con has yet to get us a creditable answer to why it is NOT a perversion." Pro bears the burden of proving that it is. Now people accept that "normal" encompasses homosexuality. Science supports that conclusion. Pro only presents his opinions. The resolution is negated.
Homosexuality is a perversion

We are not here to define what makes "normal"-normal. Con has yet to get us a creditable answer to why it is NOT a perversion. Con also makes the error of confusing homosexuality with homosexual acts. A "straight" man can have sexual fantasies about men but never carry out the act therefore society will not see him as a homosexual. I have laid out my key source to this debate numerous times - dictionary.com. Con then quotes what I have said earlier in R1 and proves me correct when I said we pick and chose which perversions we wish to accept, I thank him for that. I then made the comparison how pedophiles are deemed untouchable for their perversion while homosexuals aren't and stated it as an hypocrisy because they are both parties of perverts in the definition of perversion. Con then asks for evidence that should be self evident, is he to ask for evidence of gravity or oxygen as well? Con attempts to equate masturbation to the same level of perversion as homosexuality, as I stated in R1 - Homosexual is abnormal even nature. Masturbation however is not because we often see animals pleasing themselves, I refer Con to any Zoo or local dog park for that source. Subject material may be to graphic for this forum. Con attempted in R1 to defend homosexuality as a means to control population growth and I again ask, how does this argument relate to his burden of proving that homosexuality is not perversion. That is an entirely different debate. I will for the third time define perversion for Con - "any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal". In R1 I provided evidence for homosexuality being a perversion not because of psychology but because it is "generally regarded as being abnormal". Society as a whole deems what is psychologically appropriate, I refer Con to any election. Again, I thought these truths would be self evident, my apologies. Con then attempts to make me debate proposition 8 and claims to have refuted my argument, this is erroneous. The argument I presented was that society as a whole deems Gays as "abnormal". If they were normal, they would be able to marry right along side straight people, so no Con did NOT refute my argument. So we are to ask ourselves- "Is homosexuality a perversion" and the obvious answer by definition alone is Yes. Can straight people have perversions? Yes, but that is not the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is "Homosexuality is a perversion". To defend this statement I have asked Con to open a dictionary. We are not here to debate the authenticity of the word perversion or what it should be. Con has made a great attempt to red herring the argument several ways by giving examples of OTHER perversions but has yet to give an answer to why he can not change the meaning of the word perversion to better fit his argument. Until more than 51% of men are sexually attracted to one another, Homosexuality is a Perversion.
Homosexuality is a perversion

Pro stated the objective of the debate as, "I would like to keep this debate on the topic of the sexual relationship between two men and how it is or isn't against natural laws of reproduction and the human psych [psyche]." Pro claimed "I will propose [prove] that homosexual acts are acts of sexual perversion as well as a psychological disorder ..." In R1 I established that homosexuality is not "against the natural laws ..." because the "norm" is a statistical distribution. Pro's error is comparable to saying that the normal outcome of a spin of a roulette wheel is 18, because that is the average. The norm for human behavior is a spectrum of behaviors. I gave references, Pro offered no contradicting data. Furthermore, the scientific opinion is clear: "As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder." In 1994, they added, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity." http://allpsych.com... The example I gave of asexuality shows that his broad definition of "perversion" is wrong. It is sexual behavior every bit as "abnormal" and "contrary to function" as homosexuality, but Pro seems to admit it is not a perversion. The example also demonstrates clearly that we should indeed pick and choose what behaviors we tolerate and which we do not. We ought to tolerate the behaviors that do little or no harm, and be concerned about behaviors that cause harm. Pro now relies upon the "generally regarded" part of "generally regarded as being abnormal." The "generally regarded" makes "perversion" subject to prevailing opinion. Thus ordinary sexual behaviors like masturbation and al sex have been "perversions" in past times under Pro's definition. Does Pro agree that even if the public proclaims it a "perversion," that is not grounds to take any action, socially or legally, against it? As a matter of language that is one thing, but Pro claims that society should act against homosexuality as a consequence of its being merely thought perverse. In modern society, homosexuality is generally accepted as part of the normal spectrum of behavior. Pro offered one argument in support of his contention that the public considers homosexuality a perversion, the California rejection of Prop 8. I refuted that; it was about the word "marriage." Pro has not countered, nor produced other evidence about public sentiment. Pro contended that homosexuality was "against the natural laws of reproduction." I showed why it might support the natural laws of reproduction. Does he now abandon his original claim? Which of his claims does he still defend? Pro offers no evidence supporting any of his contentions, only his own opinions. The resolution is negated.
Homosexuality is a perversion

The topic of this debate was not asexuality as a perversion in comparison to homosexuality, this is a clear attempt to red herring the argument. Asexuals are irrelevant to the discussion because, as con stated, they are unable to even have a perversion because they lack the interest to have sex, granted they may enjoy the spiritual relationship with people. 3,000 characters is plenty if Con would of debated the issue of homosexuals being natural or not perverse rather than Asexuals. Con also seems to want to make his own definition of what a perversion is. Rather than disproving my statement that homosexuality is a perversion, Con makes his new definition of perversion by insisting that it is only a perversion if it is "harmful" to society. My argument was the hypocrisy of calling homosexuality a normal way of life if it is the only way of life they know. I stated that pedophiles and other sexual perverts are only attracted to their perversion as a homosexual is only attracted to his perversion. I will again define the word Perversion for Con. Perversion - any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal-Dictionary. com It is self evident that homosexuals, like people who are sexually attracted to animals, is abnormal. I put forth the notion that there may be a link in a chemical imbalance in sexual interest. Con made an attempt to show that I would imprison asexuals like homosexuals, this is false. I clearly stated that some perverts need psychological evaluation rather than prison. Con then argues that Homosexuality may be a "benefit to society as whole for serving as a mechanism for population control". I ask the audience, what does this have to do with the topic of homosexuality being a perversion? Birth Control is a mechanism for population control, not homosexuality. Con has failed to refute my notion that Homosexuality is indeed a perversion. I ask the audience to set aside their own personal bias or sexual interest and acknowledge that homosexual behavior is not preordained by nature and is in fact a perversion because it is in its very nature abnormal. I have over 600 characters still remaining, but instead, I'll leave to the floor open to Con to attempt to disprove my original claim that homosexuality is a perversion.