BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clothing Style/Amount Should Be Up to The Individual and Not Enforced by Law

Forcing clothing laws is sometimes an extremely necessary precaution. The burqa for example is a clothing choice for many Islamic women worldwide, however it has been banned in France. Now this is not just in response to claims that the burqa is a symbol of female oppression, although arguably it is. The burqa poses a significant risk to security as it is the equivalent of walking into shops and down the street wearing a balaclava or bike helmet (which must be taken off upon entry of shops). Thus we have already had robberies in the west with the assailants escaping posing as innocent muslim women, and all the while camera footage having no way to identify them. For this reason the law must be applied to clothing when they pose a threat to security.If you wish to wear revealing clothing then I have no quarrel although I do think that modesty is a great virtue and does reflect the value one's self confidence. I think it is very important for the self esteems of young men and women that they see the value in their personalities rather than their looks. You mentioned that we used to only wear clothing for protection against the elements. Nowadays people seek more fulfilling relationships than simply sexual attraction leading to reproduction. Happiness can only ever be achieved when you genuinely like the person you are with, which is much less likely to happen when men and women attract partners by sexual attraction alone.Nonetheless the law must be enforced when clothing poses a threat to security. If you wear too much you may also hide your identity which is not compatible with the law.
Clothing Style/Amount Should Be Up to The Individual and Not Enforced by Law

To begin I would firstly like to say I am not a nudist nor would I be if clothing was optional in society, so my opinion does not come from a bias towards my own agenda. However, I believe it is oppressive to force clothing laws on citizens. We began as a species that wore clothing only to protect ourselves from the environment and it slowly developed into a means of being stylish. That being said the amount of clothing a person wears is not a matter of morals, only a matter of taste. It is not right or wrong to have your body exposed if you desire. Today revealing clothing is shamed and criticized. I believe this only causes unnecessary hate. If all people are to be treated as equal then our preferences of exposure should not be apart of our laws as views on clothing are culturally exclusive. To the acceptor: Please reply with a paragraph or so of your position.
Should The School Dress code be strictly enforced

I don't think it should because why does it affect other people if I want to wear a tank top that has spaghetti straps it is my body and if I want to show cleavage I should be aloud to it teaches girls that it is up to them to not distract guys guys don't have as many rules in the dress code as girls and if you do break the dress code they make you feel like you are a slut its not like if you are wearing a tanktop that isn't revealing he will be thinking "oh look at that sexy shoulder it is so distracting" and if he does he will be distracted by anything a girl is wearing or not wearing."
Should The School Dress code be strictly enforced

forcing people to dress alike, takes away their individuality. All people need a sense of expression and many people do it through their clothing. If all teens and children were forced to dress alike, they would not be able to develop properly Getting a uniform is an expensive, additional outfit for them to wear. They do have to have other clothes to wear other than their school uniform so spending money on clothes is inevitable. Buying a pair of jeans for $20 and a shirt for $15 is much cheaper than having to purchase dress slacks, blazers, skirts, socks, and shoes all together ranging $150-$200. But if during the years most crucial for development you are told you can't wear something you find comfortable and you like because it distracts guys not because you but because of something you can't control sure you can control what you wear but you can't choose how big your boobs are or what the weather is going to be one girl can wear a shirt and it be to revealing but another girl can wear that exact same shirt and it no be revealing at all.
Should The School Dress code be strictly enforced

Exactly my point, school uniforms prevent such from happening. Yes, it is the girl's fault and she should put more clothes on, however with strict dress codes, this will not happen. No "hot girls" will be permitted to wear provocative clothing, improving studies of other students. Also, the person wearing the specific clothing will not be bullied with this dress code. Usually, in various school women are called horrible things due to cleavage. These words include the one that started with an s that you mentioned in the first round. With strict rules, women and men have a smaller risk of sexual assault, learn better, and slightly lowers bullying. However, not having one provides no actual benefit.
Should The School Dress code be strictly enforced

Why should it be up to the girl to not distract they guy if it is hot and a girl is wearing a tanktop and shorts because it is hot and that distracts the guy she is the one who is punished she has to put on more clothes and then she has to burn up and if a guy rapes someone he most likely has some sort of mental problem he probably picked her because he could overpower her it doesn't matter what she is wearing in some cases it might be because of what she is wearing but not most.
Should The School Dress code be strictly enforced

I accept. Dress codes prevent provocative and dangerous clothing from being worn. Furthermore, they prevent inappropriate clothing that could largely influence other students. This interfere's with studies, and overall focus in class rooms. With strict dress codes, we also prepare students for future employment. The job that student's will most likely have will involve a required attire, for example an pant suit. Student's are already prepared for such due to the dress code. Dress codes also prevent sexual assault. When provocative clothing is worn, it increases the risk of rape. With the dress codes, the risk is lowered.
Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

Counter Arguments: While the fossil record does not disprove fallible beings, it does not prove falliable beings either, and gives concrete evidence for the theory of evolution. The homologous does not prove fallible beings as well, but it does give significant evidence for evolution The same goes with DNA. All these things combined do not prove the existance of fallible beings but rather all suports evolution. With all these evidences combined we have a valid scientific theory of evolution.
Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

Counter Arguments: Though the fossil record does support evolution it does not disprove the fallible beings I am arguing for. The fossils could have been animals that the fallible being created but died due to unknown complications. The homologous structures support my claim as it shows that the fallible beings simply modified each animal as they went. It would not make any sense for them to build each animal from scratch when they can simply modify each being. DNA fits along the same lines a homologous structures, the beings which created us simply modified our DNA as they went. New arguments: My first new argument discusses human sexuality. As you know there is a large spectrum of human sexuality. In the wild homosexuality offers an advantage because it allows social organisms to create bonds within the group. This is of course a very advantageous trait for social species. Therefore it makes sense that all organisms within social species should be bisexual as then the organisms could form bonds with each member of its social group. This is not the case in reality as some organisms are only attracted to members of the opposite sex and others to the same sex. If evolution were true than bisexual individuals would form the most bonds within their group and increase their chances of passing on their genes.
Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

Evidence for Evolution: Fossil Record: The Fossil Record shows organisms similiar to those today but slightly different. Combined, the fossil record shows a change over time, which is evidence for evolution. (http://necsi.edu...) Homologies: Evolutionary theory states that all life developed from one common ancestor and homologies, or similiraties to in living organisms is evidence for this. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Shared DNA: Living things share DNA, such as humans and bananas share 50% of their dna and humans and chimpanzees share about 99% DNA. This also supports the evolutionary theory that all life comes from a common ancestor. (http://news.sciencemag.org... (http://www.mirror.co.uk...)
Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

My opponent states that I have used a non sequitur fallacy however I fail to see this. My arguments directly relate to evolutionary theory as they dispute evolutions claim that the animals with disadvantagous traits will fail to pass on their genes. As you can see with my examples the organisms are passing on their genes despite having these useless and dangerous organs. My next point was questioning the view that organisms with sex organs could evolve from organisms with asexual reproduction. This is certainly relevent as according to evolutionary theory the sex organs would have to offer some advantage over asexual reproduction to be chosen for by natural selection. As stated before sex organs do not offer enough advantages to be chosen for. Another example I would like to add is the curious species, the bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle will (when in danger) release two chemicals from its abdomen which when mixed will produce an explosive reaction which the beetle will use to defend itself. With evolution it would be very difficult for a species to select for all these traits. The beetle would need to produce both chemicals and aquire traits to protect itself from the boiling hot reactants coming out of its abdomen. This further refutes evolution as it would be far more likely that the bombardier beetle was created by an intelligent being(s).
Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

In this debate I shall be arguing for evolution and against Creationism/ID To construct his case that humans were created by falliable my opponent states two things, that humans have many parts of their anatomy which do not serve any real purposes and may cause problems and that sex organs are simply too complicated to be evolved. This is a non sequitur fallacy, just because of defects and complications of human anitomy does not neccessarily mean that we were designed by falliable beings for reasons unknown. My opponent has thus failed to come up with sufficient evidence for his BoP. My case is that evolution has scientific evidence to support its validility as a scientific theory. Such examples include the fossil record, homologies, distrubution in time and space, and evidence by example. Due to time constaints I shall go into detail about each of those evidences for evolution. In conclusing, my opponent's arguments do not provide sufficient evidence to believe that fallibale beings created all life on Earth for reasons unknown. There is, however, sufficient scientific evidence to believe that the theory of evolution is true which will be explored next round.
Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

First off I will be argueing that all life on earth was created by fallible beings for reasons unknown. I will not be argueing Intelligent desighn as it is basicly just evolution but guided and I believe that that would lead to a very boring and uneventful debate. My arguments are as follows: 1. Humans have many parts of their anatomy which do not serve any real purpose such as the tailbone or male nipples. It would be benificial to remove these components as the mother will be wasting nutrients to create them. These organs also poccess the problem that they will become infected. This happens often with wisdom teeth and tonsils thereby making these parts more trouble then they're worth. If evolution were true than these parts would quickly be removed as they do not benefit the species. If we were created by a fallible designer it is possible that they made a mistake or did not think it all the way through. 2. My next point is on the development of complex organs especially the sex organs. As you know the sex organs allow 2 organisms to reproduce and the offspring gains genetic traits from both of them. If evolution were true than this procces would take a very long time (as 2 sexes would have to arise from one or from a previous proccess of sharing genetic material). This procces would have to also offer an advantage over the method of asexual reproduction and the method of horizontal gene transfer which bacteria use to evolve today. These organs would also have the disadvantage of being infected and reducing the chance that the organism would survive. If it were a fallible creatormade us than it may have decided for whatever reason to give us sex organs. For these reasons it makes more sense that a fallible creator/creators made us. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.toptenz.net...
Open bigotry was common EVERYWHERE in America, not just the South

I agree, and I apologize, sir for my misunderstood about "slavery", and racism itself. I wasn't meanting to the exodus in the southwestern, nor the decisions of Abraham Lincoln. I could refer myself as the beggining of the XX century, when the "white-supremacy" groups like the KKK were reborn, with a very xenophobe point of view. (http://es.wikipedia.org......), when the Klan was refounded in Missisipi, and easily became more extended with the hatred that the racists held against the blacks those years. With Martin Luther King, and the equality that came in the '70-80's, it became obvious that the racism in the south and north were practically equal, It was always obvious. You're forgetting that open racism was not just against blacks, but also against other non-whites. Woodrow Wilson (who was from New Jersey). The Irish and Germans were severely hated, and were subjected to hate crimes up North (which were never punished).But in the 1930-1950 was a marked racist tendency in the south, http://en.wikipedia.org...especially in Alabam with the Jim Crow laws, things that weren't north ahead like in Seattle or Washington.I'm sorry sir. I don't understand the sentence.But undoubtely the century XX the racism was concentred in the south.See the link I put above.Far from true, and this was really only shortly (24 years) before desegregation happened. Oh and this proves something about the culture of racism in the North, the crime was never punished either.Open racism has been a part of all of America's culture of not just racism but bigotry as well in general
Open bigotry was common EVERYWHERE in America, not just the South

I agree, and I apologize, sir for my misunderstood about "slavery", and racism itself. I wasn't meanting to the exodus in the southwestern, nor the decisions of Abraham Lincoln. I could refer myself as the beggining of the XX century, when the "white-supremacy" groups like the KKK were reborn, with a very xenophobe point of view. (http://es.wikipedia.org...), when the Klan was refounded in Missisipi, and easily became more extended with the hatred that the racists held against the blacks those years. But in the 1930-1950 was a marked racist tendency in the south, especially in Alabam with the Jim Crow laws, things that weren't north ahead like in Seattle or Washington. With Martin Luther King, and the equality that came in the '70-80's, it became obvious that the racism in the south and north were practically equal, but undoubtely the century XX the racism was concentred in the south.
Open bigotry was common EVERYWHERE in America, not just the South

You are talking about that racism is spreaded about all U.S, and that's right. But this is focused in that it was created in the south, the bigotry has "it's roots" there , and therefore, many more people have those ideas in the south.I disagree, sir. Racism has its roots in neither the South or in slavery whatsoever. You're under the impression that slavery and racism are they same. They couldn't be more different. Racism has to do with hating other(another) race(s). Slavery is holding people in bondage. The reason racism happened in America is because people bought their beliefs of Western superiority into this country. The Native Americans certainly weren't slaves anymore by the time Abraham Lincoln launched his nasty war against Sioux tribes in Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The same Lincoln also appointed a racist named Rowan Hinton Helper (one was racist against Natives; the other was racist against blacks). Yet he was against slavery, and better yet he come from Illinois. There are several others.http://en.wikipedia.org...Now before you go around saying Southerners came there, bringing their cultural racism, and thus causing the lynching, look at when it happened. This is before the Great Exodus of Southerners happened in 1910. This was in 1882, which would mean that North Dakota and South Dakota have a culture of racism themselves, native to the native white population there. Let me not forget the most important aspect of the cultural racism at work here: this lynching was never punished.So cultural racism and other forms of bigotry have been common in all of America.
Open bigotry was common EVERYWHERE in America, not just the South

You are talking about that racism is spreaded about all U.S, and that's right. But the slavery-treat to the "lesser" races began in the south states. I am certainly from South America, Colombia, to be exact, and in the times I went to U.S many people insulted my family, calling us "mexican immingrants", when they had no idea about us, and thus, couldn't attack us. But this is focused in that it was created in the south, the bigotry has "it's roots" there , and therefore, many more people have those ideas in the south.
On balance, Nikola Tesla is better than Thomas Edison

Since my opponent has posted his argument, I will assume that he has accepted, and I thank him for that. However, my opponent must still post his case this round in order to follow the round protocol. If he doesn't, he will be disqualified.I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution which states: On balance, Nikola Tesla is better than Thomas Edison. Since the resolution states, "on balance", my judges must view this round based on balance, i.e.., the benefits of Tesla must outweigh his detriments in order for Pro to win this round.Contention 1: Tesla invented more useful thingsWhile Edison did "invent" the incandescent light bulb (he ripped it off of Humphrey Davy's idea[1]), Tesla invented much more; the florescent light bulb, radio, remote control, the electric motor, robotics, lasers, and wireless communication and limitless free energy (the only reason we have to pay for electricity is because when the contractor found out that Tesla would make energy free and there was no money in it, he canceled the construction of Tesla's energy tower), plus he discovered x-rays. Probably Tesla's most useful invention was alternating current (AC). Alternating current was so much more effective than Edison's direct current (DC), that Edison set up public demonstration in which he electrocuted animals using AC in an attempt to make people think that it was dangerous. With DC, there had to be power generators every 1 mile, and the cables running between them had to be thicker than your arm, making them extremely expensive and ugly, plus detrimental to the environment. However, with AC (which we still use today), you only need inch-thick wires going on thin poles. Far cheaper and less environmentally damaging. And these are only a few of Tesla's inventions.Contention 2: Edison was a bad personMost people don't know this, but Tesla actually worked for Edison for a short time...until Edison cheated Tesla out of what would now be equivalent to $1 million. Edison had heard about Tesla and wanted him to improve Edison's DC generators. He promised Tesla $50,000 ($1 million in today's money). Tesla worked long hours for several months until he finally did it. When he came to Edison to ask for his money, Edison laughed him off, saying, “When you become a full-fledged American, you will appreciate an American joke[2].” Besides this, Edison didn't even come up with his own patents. All he did was hire people to come up with his ideas for him, and then steal them, market them, and get rich because of them.Since Tesla actually invented far more important things than Edison, and besides that Edison was an overall bad person, there is no other ballot than that of the Pro.Thank you.[1] - http://www.unmuseum.org... [2] - http://mentalfloss.com...
On balance, Nikola Tesla is better than Thomas Edison

I support the resolution that states: On balance, Nikola Tesla is better than Thomas Edison.This will be a clean round. No insults or trolling.You will have 72 hours to post your argument with a 10,000 character maximum. The rounds will go as follows:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Cases (NO rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: RebuttalsRound 5: Summary (NO new arguments)Breaking of any of these rules will result in auto-forfeiture.I hope for a fun and challenging debate!
Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal

In summary, free speech is best served by having vigorous debate, as on this site. Where one side is obviously and demonstrably wrong that makes the debate that much easier for the other. Holocaust denial is one such area. Express advocacy of violence that is imminent, or causing it another way (for example speakers inciting an unruly crowd to riot, or the old canard "shouting fire in a crowded theatre") are instances which do not fall under this. Free speech is a fundamental right for all human beings.
Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal

Obviously this is a senstive issue but I'm sure we can debate it civilly. Allow me to define my terms: Holocaust Denial: 1. Denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, i. e. the genocide of six million Jews and others, or underestimating the numbers killed. Holocaust denialism appears to be focused on the Jewish victims largely. . http://en.wiktionary.org... Illegal: (law) Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. . http://en.wiktionary.org... "Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 16 countries" mostly Western European. Allow me to make clear this is not a debate on the extent or existence of the Holocaust, which I accept to be historical fact. Rather my contention is that denial of the events should not be illegal, though certainly it must be condemned and (if necessary) refuted. There are several reasons for this. 1. While sympathetic with the motive of wishing to punish such despicable opinions, I believe that only violent actions or incitements to commit the same, rather than verbal, published or broadcast views should be criminal. For instance, direct incitement to commit violence against Jews or anyone else would be a crime. Denial of certain facts associated with them should not be. I realize this can be seen as a covert way to incite violence, but that must be proven, not inferred, like any other charge. 2. The punishment of Holocaust deniers allows them to paint themselves as martyrs for a cause and may convince others that if they are being punished there must be something to their opinions. Hence defeating the purpose of the laws. 3. Coercion does not make opponents accept your view, as follows from the above. In fact, the opposite is true in most cases. While being reluctant to defend the freedoms of people whose views I despise, this is a part of free speech. If we believe in it, freedom of speech must protect those we disagree with as well. That seems clear. Thank you and I look forward to pro's arguments.