BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism

I can agree with the fact that in many cases the children are lied to, as well as simply misinformed as to what is really going on. This was clearly seen in the video. However, assuming that in all cases the children must be part of the Pakistani culture and not hold the same beliefs as the Taliban, can't be the case. Likely not in all situations, but in some, It is certainly possible for some of the children to hold Taliban beliefs. Because this is something that would impossible to truly know for sure, assuming that it can't be true is not reasonable. There has to be some openness to understand that it is possible to be the case that some children are in fact Taliban believers. On to the next point; The idea that the children are of a different society is irrelevant to the main point of the debate. The debate is whether the usage of the child suicide bombers by the Taliban is morally excusable by the theory of moral relativism. Pointing out the moral codes of the children, assuming that they are in fact different than the Taliban's, does not have any bearing on the moral code of the Taliban itself. It is still possible that the Taliban's system of morals allows for this behavior because that group itself is a sub-community of the general Muslim society. The children, according to the last counter argument, are part of the general Muslim society that the Taliban is a sub-community of. Still two separate societies, therefore it is still possible for them to have two separate moral codes.
The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism

The issue we are examining is the Taliban's use of children as their means of carrying out suicide bombing attacks. Even if you make the claim that the Taliban are are a subset community of a larger society, we must also examine the children themselves. As evidenced in the video, it is obvious that the children have little idea what's really going on. The children are told that the bomb won't kill them because they are misinformed as to the laws of physics, or told lies on what they're carrying. Some of the attacks the children simply sit by, believing they're holding on to secret documents, then when an American convoy passes a Taliban superior flips the switch from a safe spot. Based on this clear deception, I don't think you can call the children a part of the Taliban culture using the aforementioned definition, as the children aren't there for the same political reasons. Even using a moral relativist theory, if the children- not being Taliban because they have different beliefs and understandings- are of a different society, then they must be by default part of the Pakistani culture, in which the murdering of children is still wrong.
Donald trump should get impeached

Good luck to my opponent as well. I believe Trump should not be impeached. He was elected into office fairly. His ties with Russia are very complicated and are still being investigated. His ties to Russia are mostly through his advisors, and through a complicated web we find Russia at the end. However, at the moment there is no solid evidence for Trump's connections to Russia that would be enough for him to get impeached. Comey was fired on May 9, not for his statement on Russia but because of his attorney generals. The white house released the statement, "President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions." Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was not pleased with Comey's way of handling the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Comey held a press conference sometime in July, stating that Hillary should not be charged for her actions, but then reopened the investigation sometime in october 2016. In my opinion, this is very unprofessional of an FBI Director and I agree with Rosensteins's suggestions towards Trump. Here's a fitting quote from White house press secretary Sarah Huckaby Sanders. Sanders, May 10: "I think he"s heard from the rank and file of the FBI, but particularly someone who had done a thorough review and someone who has the respect and reputation that the deputy attorney general has, he took that seriously. He took the recommendation seriously. And he made a decision based on that." Thank you and good luck.
Donald trump should get impeached

I'm new to this site so I'm just trying to squeeze in a debate lol. Here's the rules. 1.Use sources to back up claims 2.Use correct grammar and spelling. 3. Stay on topic If you have accepted the above rules, make a post saying you have accepted the rules and start by stating your argument. Thanks. PRO IS IN FAVOUR OF TRUMP GETTING IMPEACHED CON IS AGAINST TRUMP GETTING IMPEACHED
The democrats are more racist than the republicans

Pro dropped my entire argument of round 1. I accept this concession, thank you for conceding this debate.How do voter ID's counter racism? http://www.democrats.org...In European nations with voter ID's the system is publicly funded as well as health care and a variety of other things that Republicans would refuse to publicly fund. If the poor are having to spend money on health care and the likes then how on Earth will they afford publicly funded photo id's in the first place in order to vote? Ah, oops! 1-0 to the Dems and this is still not to do with the resolution.Poor people cannot physically vote in a photo ID nation if the ID requires money and so do health care and education. Republicans want everything privately funded and then want to further burden on the poor by making voting eligibility be based on the ability to afford a photo ID... Yeah, I do not see how this is benefiting anyone.It just so happens that non-whites have lower household incomes, on average, than their white counterparts (http://en.wikipedia.org...). That is why Democrats deem it indirectly racist of Republicans to have this policy system in place. This is further supported by how much more whites are inclined to Republicanism than other races [http://www.gallup.com...] this gap in affiliation is not seen nearly as severely in Democrats vs Independents.This debate is about modern day Democrats and Republicans. If it weren't it wouldn't state 'are' it would state 'have been'. The KKK were indeed racist and had Democrat ties simply because they were going against what the North (democratic states) stood for. This is logical since the KK would have had nothing to fight for in the Southern, Republican regions where blacks were being severely abused and mistreated to an inhumane degree. Thus, if the entire state is Democrats the KKK within them would also have been labeled as a Democratic citizen.Obama's approval rate is low because he took over from the moron George Bush and had a huge back log to make up for. Let's now compare Bush's approval rates and a variety of other racist imbeciles that made up the Republican party and suddenly we see a different picture of Obama.http://ourfuture.org...Obama's only disadvantage to Bush is Bush dealt with unemployment more brutally and had people working for lower wages but more of them actually employed. Other than that it's a landslide victory. Need I bring up more failed Right win nutjobs for you to understand what a brilliant party the Democrats are? Also, this is absolutely nothing to do with the resolution.
The democrats are more racist than the republicans

Umm" Sure" Thank you for accepting. I would like to point out that the "argument" above is a list of rules rather than an argument. However, Con"s argument is still technically an argument. Therefore I will treat it as such. So let me start. "Pro implies that the Democrats do not recognize the existence of races themselves and concludes that one can be racist if they don't but only can e non-racist f they do." I don't really know how to respond to that, but I do know that I wasn"t implying anything. So thats pretty much it for con. Here is my argument. 1.Voter Id"s Democrats oppose voter id"s. Every european country has voter id"s. Voter id"s make sure illegal immigrants and mentally ill people do not vote. They make sure that the voting information is as accurate as possible. So why do Democrats oppose voter ids. "This was made starkly clear to me when I learned that a 3rd grade teacher in a government-run school was telling her students that Republicans were trying to take away the right to vote for black people, so they better get their parents to vote against Republicans." -J. Christian Adams. http://pjmedia.com... Basically they are opposing it because they try to teach people that republicans are trying to make it so blacks cannot vote. Leftist opponents of voter ID truly think minorities are less able to function in American life. I learned this when a Department of Justice Voting Section lawyer opposed to voter ID told me he thought blacks were more likely to forget their photo identification than whites were. -J. Christian Adams. This is just about as racist as you can get. Democrats believe that blacks were more likely to forget their photo identification than whites were. 2.KKK Its kind of hard to believe that it was the democrats that supported the KKK due to all the bulls#it that democrats say nowadays. However this is true. "The fact is that both the KKK and Planned Parenthood are creations of the Democratic Party," http://www.politifact.com... http://www.debate.org... This was true for not only the KKK. The democratic party"s ad"s very well may be like these today if the republicans didn"t start reconstruction after the civil war. Blacks were given schools and homes. They were given opportunities. The radical republicans struck down the Black Codes and proposed and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. All directed to give blacks rights that they so long didn"t have. 3.Obama Supporters I don"t need to prove that democrats believe Romney and McCain supporters are racist purely because they don"t vote for Obama. Everyone knows that. The truth is very simple. Obama's approval rate is staggeringly low. http://www.debate.org... http://blog.chron.com... Yet they continuously label Romney as a racist, anti-gay, bastard. The midterm elections that put the Republicans in office are also evident that Barack Obama and Harry Reid are disapproved of. Obama is a bit of a scapegoat" for democrats. Thank you for accepting. I hope this goes very well.
The democrats are more racist than the republicans

This is my first debate since a long inactivity period following a rage induced set of poor arguments. Rules: There is no status quo, therefore burden of proof is shared. This is about racism, not sexism. If sexism is argued in the place of racism... Then maybe you can get away with it if it's a strong enough argument. I believe that all races are equal and the only true way to not be racist is to not acknowledge that race exists. Con can start first.
9spaceking should be banned

Before I conclude, I'm going to be a bit of a Grammar Nazi to myself. @ScrinTech:Round 2 "I'm going be a bit of a bit of a Grammar Nazi" Why. .. Just. .. why. ENOUGH OF THE SEMANTICSFinal Round"I Help other people I don't even know[. .. ]by posting the theory that "MassiveDump is imabench[. .. ]Hey he's not. "Perhaps you could call that 'helping'. .. however what about those fans who had their dreams crushed by the Idea that 'MassiveDump is imabench' Not only have you Instated the idea of imabench still being out there you've also got a huge mob of Angry Fans. "I'm running for president of DDO. .. " That notion has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate, I don't care if you we're running for the President of the United States, when my mind is set, it's set. "I'm Very hard to win against as a debater. "Winrate of 42.11% which in all terms, is Average. "You don't even agree on this topic"Perhaps you should read my opening sentences. I only said you we're a "pretty swell guy" based on user opinions, and ended with "enough of the charity. " If you look at most of my other debates I've forfieted many rounds, the reason being for such debates as: "Pumpkin chip is better than chocolate chip. "[1], "Pasta should be illagal"[2] I started debating at school in my BIM class. When i saw these debates I started laughing my as* off. That being said, I've had my fair share of stupid debates, however, I can't agree any more on this topic, This has been my first Legitamate debate, for that I thank you Con. "My Belief of 'Glimbonzonous'" Again Con states something which has nothing to do rather than protect himself. In Conclusion Con Fails to Explain why one of his debates was removed.
9spaceking should be banned

FINAL ROUND--if I lose this I get banned for one day (when voting period ends)Okay. .. so, you managed to bounce back all my arguments, eh? Well then, I shall make my final round statements. 1. I help other people I don't even knowI helped other people gain hope by posting the theory that "MassiveDump is imabench". Hey, he's not, but at least it gives everybody hope that MD is bench!2. I'm running for president of DDO, seriouslyI might miss the final election board thing (whenever it is). I really don't want to miss the final voting day. That day's the serious competition, the real debate over who is the best president? Besides, won't people like what I'm going to do when I'm president? . http://www.debate.org...3. I'm very hard to win against as a debater. People actually have to do things to win me as a debater. No one who won against me has forfeited. If you forfeit, you lose conduct and people's respect for you. Conduct is an essential part of debating, especially since this is the final round and you have to rebut all my points! In addition, out of 11 debates I lost, 4 I have forfeited. It can be seen otherwise only 7 debates were won fair and square. But out of those 7 debates, 2 are troll debates (the "stupid" ones), and 2 are ones that I do not agree on and didn't even try on ("Mikal is the best debater ever OTHER than imabench" and "The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old. "). So technically merely 3 people really won against me, against my real skill, against my true ability of debating.4. you don't agree on this topic. You even state "I have absolutely no quarry. .. pretty swell guy", showing that he really isn't taking this debate seriously. Hey, nobody takes you seriously if you don't take yourself seriously!5. My belief of "Glimbozonous"My religion of Glimbozonous . http://www.debate.org... Athiest beliefs with Christians belief. Sure, it's a far shot from merging the two together and stopping all the Cold Wars and battles, but it's a nice thing to think about! It explains the source of the Big Bang, why earth is the only unique planet for life for miles around, and the free will we have in this world. I did this debate just to see if I could type up a logical argument in times of stress and danger of my account getting banned. Apparently I can. In conclusion I should not be banned.
9spaceking should be banned

Before we continue... I'm going be a bit of a Grammar NaziHumongous; Extraordinarily LargeHumongous in it's context as presented in the current DDO Debate"But if he's banned for one day he'll (he will) probably dislike DDO (debate.org)humongouslyand post this as soon as he has the chance to"[Insert angry picture of Fluttershy here] Words that probably could have worked here instead:"Entirely""All Together""Etc."Not to mention "Humongously" isn't a word.I just really hate grammatical errors even though I probably have my fair share of them. Back to the Debate!"9Spaceking's not a troll..."Then why create this debate If you already have a debate titled "I am a better internet troll than my opponent"[1]"9Spaceking is popular among the debaters..."So was imabench...[2]"Second one's for fun while con shows how elaborate my plan really was..."Ok I can see where your point is here, It's for the Con to be able to keep a debate going without the need of a Pro; As brilliant as that may seem it still seems that, the "This Debate is Stupid" debates can't be classified as a debate, since Pro never uses any arguments in them what-so-ever. Links: [1]: www.debate.org/I-am-a-better-internet-troll-than-my-opponent/1/ [2]: www.debate.org/imabench/
9spaceking should be banned

9spaceking is not a troll. You heard me, I'm not a troll! I'm just an intelligent 15 year old who makes dumb-debates and accepts them as well. 9spaceking's dumb debates--the first one is actual argument, second one's for fun while con shows how elaborate my plan really was, third one I tried again, but this time con was serious and etc. etc. "Such a debate has no reason rather than having the user debating itself. It turns out that these debates are useless entirely," THAT'S WHY THEY'RE STUPID!! 9spaceking's a brony. If that is not clear so sorry. But if he's banned for one day he'll probably dislike debate.org humongously and post this as soon as he has the chance to: 4. 9spaceking is popular among the debaters--please see the comments.
9spaceking should be banned

Okay, Just so I start this out pretty calmly. I have absolutely no quarry with 9spaceking,I just decided to take this on for the he*l of it because a lot of people agree with him. To be honest he's probably a pretty swell guy, but enough of the charity. For this debate I'll be taking the side of Pro to the idea of the banning of "9spaceking" for a day. 9spaceking1. 9spaceking uses clone debates. DDO is a site for debating, this is true. However 9spaceking has created multiple "Clone" Debates titled "This Debate is Stupid." While these debates are old there's really no logical reasoning for them. Such a debate has no reason rather than having the user debating itself. It turns out that these debates are useless entirely, as there really is no debate going on rather than 9spaceking forfeiting the rounds. [1][2][3] Links: [1]: http://www.debate.org...[2]: http://www.debate.org...[3]: http://www.debate.org... 2. 9spaceking had one of his debates removed.Normally the customer support has a reason for removing a specific debate, such as if it violated ToS (Terms of Service)Yesterday he had his debate removed by customer support This leads me to the conclusion that someone had flagged the debate. "Humpty dumpty sat on a wall and had a great fall." was the title of said debate.[1]Links:[1]: http://www.debate.org... 3. 9spaceking uses mostly opinions in debates.Although I agree with him on this one voicing his opinion elaborately. I concur that there was no reason to state such a topic in a debate. imabench; possibly the best debater that DDO has ever seen, banned for violating some part of the ToS which resulted in angry fans, etc. Voicing an Opinion should be kept to the "Opinions"[1] Section of DDO, which would have been easier to use in any case[2]. Another example of this would be the example of "Mikal being the best debater other than imabench."[3] While I'm saying he uses Opinions such as everyone else in DDO, he uses them in the wrong context and would be much better suited at the DDO "Opinions" Section, or looking into why imabench was actually banned.Links:[1]: http://www.debate.org...[2]: http://www.debate.org...[3]: http://www.debate.org...On to you Con.
should kids get paid for there cleaning

This is an absolutely pointless debate, this is already a thing - chores. But what I'm saying here is that to ask for more money by doing chores is just being selfish, you are asked to do chores by your parents to make their life easier as they have to work their butts off and their children spend their days at school or at home chilling out. Being asked to do chores is pretty much time to do something during your long break session.
should kids get paid for there cleaning

Not if it's chores every time. You are assigned to doing chores so your mother (supposedly) has less to do. Mothers work hard as a house mother, and doing chores for them makes the job easier. Getting payed every time for helping isn't very nice, as it's your mother needing help and then you're asking to get money for it? Outrageous. They can get payed if it was a job such as working at the laundromat but helping your mother is not an occupation.
"assault weapons" should NOT b banned

Pro argues that because firearms that are not assault rifles have been the tools of the majority of homicides, assault rifles are not more deadly than other firearms. However, the assault rifle was designed with a specific purpose in mind: mid range infantry combat. Assault rifles are more dangerous than many other firearms because they are often capable of selective fire and because they have attachments to increase their ammo capacity, rate of fire, and overall deadliness. I acknowledge that shooting for sport is quite popular and I believe that it is valid to say that, in a controlled environment such as a licensed shooting range, assault rifles are OK. I believe that an entity that wants to own an assault rifle should have to be a shooting range. There is no reason for individuals to own assault rifles, because they can attend shooting ranges and sporting events to shoot them. Personal possession of assault rifles is dangerous because they are military grade weapons that were developed for combat, and they are able to kill multiple individuals quickly because of their often automatic firing capabilities and dangerous attachments. That the statistical number of homicides using assault rifles is low does not tell us how powerful they are relative to other guns. If armed with an assault rifle, an individual will be able to cause more damage in a shooting than if he were armed with a rifle without attachments, or incapable of selective fire. My evidence is the fact that assault rifles are successful in military combat, and their development by the Germans in WWII was emulated by many other nations.
"assault weapons" should NOT b banned

Con has conceded. I'd like to first state I apologize for the pathetic typo in the title. I can't believe I did that and didn't notice. To conclude my arguments, I just want to say that even though some things are more dangerous or a little more dangerous (and in this case, "assault weapons" are NOT a little more dangerous, they perform the same as any other rifle) that most things shouldn't be banned from good mentally sane citizens. People should respect other peoples passions and instead of banning stuff from good people, look for alternative solutions to prevent problems.