BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

Well in some incidences it may be better for the children to become suicide bombers for many different reasons. One you have to take a look from the point of view of the parents. Some of the parents when they sent off their children, they do not have the knowledge their child will be trained to become suicide bombers, thing might have changed. Another maybe they might not have a chance to not take their children to be educational and then become suicide bombers at the religious school. This may be due to the fact that the parents may have been threatened to have their child put into the school. Also I know that they many Islamic families they like to have a large family with many children. The parents might be poor since many Islamic countries are poor, and have too many children to feed, and this might be one of the only ways the parents will get by. The parents at the end, might get reward for sending off their children to the school. And so this way the child will actually/may have a better future with some sort of education because if they stayed back with the family the child may end up with nothing, and a terrible life. Also reason might be that the parents have knowledge beforehand this will happened, and the parents might be one of those ones that are enraged with the Americans, so having their child become suicide bombers might be the best or only way for them to get back their revenge. What can cause all hate, it begins with the state controlled medias in those country to make the individual think Americans are evil.
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

I diagree with what you said when you said children are individuals who think for themselves. I believe children cannot think for themselves, they do not know any better and they basically just listen to whatever they are told. They brought in children because they are easily manipulative, and they cannot bring in adults because they know better. They know what suicide bombing is and they know they will die. Being easily manipulated, children do not know what they are in for, therefore they cannot think for themselves as well as adults can. They are told lies right from the beginning starting with school. They are told committing suicide is allowed, so they do not know what the adults know. I do agree with teenagers just wanting to fit in and following the norm as they are told so. In the Quran it says to not kill, why are these people killing their own citizens? Why would these people go against their own religion?
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

In any war, there has to be a cost, and incident bystanders are going to get harmed no matter what happens with the war. That is just the reality of war. No one has to support wars. And in this war, the children are just part of the cost that everyone has to deal with. Yes, children are impressionable, and they are just carrying out what they are being told, but the children are also individuals with that can think for them, especially when they get to be teenagers. For the Taliban, as stated in 14:55, 80% of them are teenagers. For teenagers they might be doing this even if they are just following orders to be against the social norm, as like all teenagers do. Also if the attacks were not mainly directed against the Americans since we are the ones at war with them, would we have a big of a problem as we do? For example what if the Taliban carried out the same thing with the child suicide bombing, during the 1980s when they were fighting with the Soviet Unions. Since we were not in the war, would people pay direct attention to the issue? Also you don"t know that, this type of problems might be happing in all societies, cultures, and religions, and you don"t hear as much discussion about those. No matter, what anybody does someone out there is going to have an issue with it one way or another.
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

Kevin, i agree with what you stated as to we do not know what is right or wrong. I disagree with what you said in this sentence, Also the children might feel special by being the ones that are specially selected to carry out the suicide bombings. I believe the children do not feel special. They are just told what to do by their elders and they listen. Their elders do not even tell them that they are going to be blown up into pieces, they tell them they are carrying secret documents. I believe they are just doing what they are told to do, because that is what most children do, they listen to what their elders say. When you stated, there have been children fighting in wars in the past, what makes this any more different? I agree when you said children have fought in wars in the past, but what makes this different is when children fought in wars they fought for their own country against another. In this war, people are using their own citizens to their own advantages and harming them. In fact they are harming children who are completely innocent and harmless. They are harming their own citizens just to carry out missions.
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

How can we say that we truly understand what is right or wrong, when we don"t even know our own culture good enough. In our culture, religion and state are separate, but that is not the case in the Islamic culture. The children are just trying to fit into their cultures. They are trying to obey the law and respecting their elders. I mean we all try to follow the rules, even though it might be wrong because the consequences might be even worse off. Plus as all children experience at their age, are also afraid of going against what is suppose to be the norm. For them to be a suicide bombers may be one of the only ways that they are able to fit into or with their peer groups. What if they don"t do this? How bad would it feel if everyone else looks down at him for being the outcast? The other boys will more than likely to point and make fun of him. Bullying is a big problem, and the elders have enough on their hands to deal with. Don"t give them any more work than they have to. Being bullied is bad enough already, they don"t want the elders to be mad at them even more by causing trouble. Also the children might feel special by being the ones that are specially selected to carry out the suicide bombings as actually we are the ones, the Americans that are actually the cause behind their rage and hate. In the video at 18:34, one boy states that he saw his god written on a toilet paper to bring him anger and rage, no matter who wrote it. Overall, I mean there have been children fighting in wars in the past, what makes this any more different, right?
The Taliban's usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

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.
Evolution is the only way to go with dining the truth which is the existence of God

Hello! Alright so I am Con to this topic, however, I will not be trying to disprove God, however, I am Con to Evolution being the "only way to go". I actually believe that when it comes to God he shouldn't be locked down by man-made theories and broken scientific laws. I am not saying all Science is bull crap, if I did then how would I prove my case? Lol. What I will be aiming for is too show that many scientific theories that make Evolution the "only way to go" are flawed and should be discarded. Hence leaving other possibilities, and Evolution not being the "Only way to go". I agree with the definitions given by Pro. Evolution is suppose to show how organisms developed from different previous organisms. I will show historic proof and artifacts found to disprove intelligence being evolved from earlier life forms, in fact I believe there has always been humans. My last prerequisite is that your topic states that "Evolution is the only way to go with dining the truth which is the existence of God" However what if someone just believes in God and doesnt believe in Evolution. They are believing in the Truth that God exist but not Evolution. So you will have to show how believing in Evolution is the only way to believe in God existing and you cant have one and not the other. Good luck!
Evolution is the only way to go with dining the truth which is the existence of God

Good day Debate.org community. I will start by providing the definitions of evolution and God before I initially start the debate with my contender. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (as defined by google) God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (as defined by google) May the best contestant win.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

My opponent has stated a good point that I have not given a reason why we are obligated to help others. So I will go ahead and fulfill his wish. Why are we obligated? We are obligated because of a few reasons. 1: It shows a good character in a person. We all know the phrase, what goes around comes around. So whether or not the actual person you help will repay you, someone, someway will. There are many people that see the good side of things. 2: How would you feel if you were in that position? Let's say you see someone who is desperately in need of help. You ignore them. Well, it is very possible that you could end up like them, or maybe a relative or a best friend could. Why wouldn't you help them? My opponent also clarified his third argument so I would like to tear it apart. He said that all of these homeless or "in need" people are lazy. There are many examples of non-lazy homeless and besides, many of the "in need" people you see, aren't actually in need. THEY are the lazy ones. For example, J.K. Rowling. Do you know how rich and famous she is?!?! Well, not too long ago she was homeless and in need. But she fended for herself and wrote her amazing books on napkins and leafs. THAT IS NOT LAZY. Another example of a non-lazy is actually a local of mine. She is a grown up and doesn't have a home. Yet she wasn't lazy a now she has an amazing job and millions in the bank. HOWS THAT FOR A LAZY BUM?????!!!! Scgates also stated that I have not upheld the burden of proof. Well, I actually include it in my last argument. Thank you for reading this debate and I truthfully hope that vote in favor of the Pro. Thank you.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

I'm just going to go over the main issues of this debate, and then explain why I have won this debate. the first main issue here was whether or not people are obligated to provide comfort and help to victims of disasters. my opponent has stated 2 examples of people who the local area felt obligated to help. The one thing that my opponent has failed to point out in this, however, is WHY. Why am I OBLIGATED to help somebody I don't even know. Why should I sacrifice my time, effort, and (in some scenarios) resources to help somebody who will probably never repay me? My opponent has simply stated we are obligated, without giving any proper reasoning. moving on... I am guessing that I didn't word my third argument right, because my opponent thought that I was making a blanket statement with that. So I will try and make it more clear. If somebody is, say, hungry, they have one of two options. They can wait for somebody who is OBLIGATED to them to give them food, or they can buy some food, or work to make money to buy some, or scrounge up materials to cook some, or many other options. In other words, they can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If somebody were to take the first option and wait for somebody who is obligated to them to satisfy this persons hunger, then they are choosing the lazy path and proving a loss of self-reliance. My opponent has also failed to uphold the BURDEN OF PROOF in this debate. in case my opponent doesn't know, the burden of proof is the explanation of why we are obligate as being the ONLY OPTION for this debate. Why do we have to provide aid to others? If we do it BY CHOICE, then they are still being helped. As I stated before, why do I HAVE to help somebody on the street if I have other personal obligations in my life that need attending to? These are the reasons that I have won this debate.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

First I would like to say that my opponent has made a very good case yet we are not getting anywhere by just arguing about the same things so I will set things straight and provide more arguments. My opponent refuted my little "story" and stated that after twenty years in the military he cannot become dirt poor. Well, last year, their were over 20,000 homeless war veterans who attended a "help" outdoor convention so they could get back on the right track. So, yes, it is possible. Maybe my argument wasn't that well said, so here is another example. Two years ago, my friend's mother past away. He was 10 years old. Obviously, he was in need of comfort. Everybody around him felt obligated to help him and comfort him. Wouldn't you too? Well, you should. And if you think that this doesn't happen often, well it happened again to another friend of mine and our whole school IS obligated to help. We have wrote letters, and numerous other things to help him through this hardship. You also stated that if you are not in the position to help someone, then you are not obligated. The second friend I stated, I am not "close" to him. Yet I feel and am obligated to help him. So IF you were to argue against that, shame on you. My opponent stated that the person that needs help is too lazy to do something about it, well how in the world are those two kids supposed to help themselves? THEY NEED COMFORT AND HELP. He stated that his argument was not agreeing to his side. I may have very well misinterpreted it. But he went on to give the example that you cannot swim so you are not obligated to help somebody drowning. For one thing, 9 out 10 times there will either be a life guard on duty or somebody else that can swim. So, the person could just ask another INDIVIDUAL. As for clarification on his second contention, their is no other way to explain it. Overall, people do have the obligation to to help others in need. Sharing comfort and help is a great policy. And remember, sharing is caring. For these reasons and more, I have clearly won this debate.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

as a brief road map, I will first attack my opponents case, and then defend my own For his intro/first point, he created an example of somebody who came home from the army to find that his family doesn't exist anymore, and now, all of a sudden, he is dirt poor and on the street. this is both unrealistic and contradictory. Lets say, for this example, that this person is in the US. For one, if you were, a: in the army, and b: a high-ranking officer, suddenly ending up on the street after service is virtually impossible(I know from experience, a large part of my family either was or still is in the military). For one, they have plans to cover a GI so that a newly released GI ISN'T left on the street. Secondly, the statement of your family simply not existing anymore after only 20 years is itself absurd, but I digress. As to whether or not I would leave them on the street, I believe that, as I stated in my first point, the obligations to my own situation would have to come first. If I'm not in a position to help somebody, then I shouldn't be obligated to sacrifice for them. His second point is completely irrelevant to this debate. The resolution isn't about America, or society. it is about the INDIVIDUAL. as for the argument about god, perhaps Christians would feel this way, but are you saying that those of other religions are inhumane because their religion doesn't require them to care for each other? Therefore his second point doesn't have much to do with the debate. Now moving on to his attacks on my case... He stated that my first point was agreeing to his side. that is not true; he must have misinterpreted my first point. My first point is that we must look to OURSELVES first. one of his arguments, in fact, fits the bill perfectly with the idea of anti-egoism, stating that we are obligated to each other. I have already stated that this idea of thinking is wrong, and a couple reasons of how. Here's an example to help explain my first point-lets say that somebody is struggling to swim while in the middle of a lake. YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T SWIM. so are you still obligated to jump into the lake? NO. this is a simplistic example, but still points out that if you don't look to yourself while helping somebody, then it will still be an irresponsible decision My opponent did not pose a clear argument against my second contention, so I must ask him to verify. my opponents third attack was just an extension of the attack of my first point, and never actually attacked my third point, which was that if we help people, then they may lose self reliance, and depend on others. This, contrary to what my opponent stated, does not mean that they are now only wanting for money. They still are in need. BUT THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Definition of obligation: the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow). According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary First I would like to thank my opponent for doing this debate and taking interest in this subject. Picture this: You Worked your whole life to become your dream, a man in the army(or woman). You served your 20 or so years in the army protecting your country. You are to be respected. You are at a higher rank than the average "Joe". Am I correct? You helped keep your country safe and away from terrorism. As I said before, you are to be respected. You come home from your service and you see that your family doesn't exist anymore, you are poor, hungry and in need. So, opposition, are you trying to say that you would leave that person in the street and leave them to have a miserable rest of their life? All people were created in G-D's image and he intended for u to help our fellow humans. What you are trying to argue is that going against G-D is good? I for one believe that is INHUMANE! !! Now, I am not trying to say that war isn't good. For, that is completely off topic. For you to argue against helping others in need is proving one thing: The original intent of America is lost. Remember, we are called the UNITED States of America for a reason! As citizens, we are OBLIGATED to help each other. WE ARE UNITED! !! My opponent has stated what the "big picture" is. and I quote: " this debate is about whether or not it is our responsibility to assist other people. " That is correct. It IS our responsibility. He also stated in his contention 3 that helping each other could exploit society. I would like to remind my opponent that the subject is to assist people in need. For someone to want secrets to a society is not a need but a want, therefore, that arguement is irrelevant. In my opponents Contention #2, not only do I believe he was being hypocritical but I believe that he made a very good point in my favor. He stated "Not helping somebody in need does not do anything to state that their lives are not valuable, only that it wouldn't be a responsible decision". This implies that not helping someone in need is not a responsible decision. In that case, that is fro my arguement, not his. In my opponents Contention #3, he stated that if you look at your welfare as less than other peoples welfare, then logically they would be able to promote the welfare of other people. In the preamble of the Constitution it states that we shall "promote the general welfare. " Notice it did not say "promote your welfare before the general welfare". Now, you don't want to go against the Constitution which our forefathers had never intended for us to infringe on, do you? If you did, that wold be another reason your arguement would be going against America! In the next round I will refute all of my opponent's points and state my own.
Glazed donuts are sinful

Glazed donuts are a sin in all religions. Whether you are a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, Hindu or Sikh, eating glazed donuts is the sin of gluttony. Consider this: a glazed donut is needlessly rich. The donut itself is already tasty enough. To "glaze" it with a fructose-based paste (deceptively called "honey") is to increase the donut's flavor beyond what is necessary. It is already sweet and good enough: why are you adding more sweetness to it? The burden of proof is upon the Con to demonstrate the following: a. that a glazed donut is not immoral b. that willfully eating said donut is not a sin c. that human pigs who eat glazed donuts are somehow not gluttonous pigs No ad hominem attacks, please! I will defeat you, but I will do it nicely. You may begin your argument in round 1.