BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dress Code is Sexist

Two women talking on 'womensnews' are not a reliable source of information. Dress codes have nothing to do with girls controlling male aggression, I don't even know where this idea sprung from. If a student refuses to conform to the school rules, then indeed their grades may suffer. Indeed if they shout and cause a nuisance they might be sent out too. Their grades will only suffer if they value their ability to show their thighs over their school grades, hence my comment about priorities. Moreover hormones have nothing to do with priorities. As I said, boys are unable to control their sex drives or hormone balances unless they take hormone therapy (strictly unethical). Consequently claiming that girls choosing to wear short skirts is the same as boys genetically having hormone imbalances is completely wrong.Pro has written: 'As for the booty shorts comment, that was a mere example of something that would be a good reason to dress code girls. Skirts/dresses that are too short and show their butt is also unacceptable in an educational environment.'And therein my point was proven. Pro has just admitted that it is unacceptable to wear short skirts, short dresses, or show their 'butts' in an educational environment. Thus I win the debate, as Pro has conceded their position.As for rape arrests, we live in a glorious age when the justice system runs on innocent before proven guilty. Given that often there is no physical evidence of rape, it is one person's word against another. Thus innocence is assumed, unless evidence comes to light. If you think this is sexist, I would absolutely loath to live in the totalitarian society you claim is an equal one. God forbid a women can ever shout rape and a man be assumed guilty.In conclusion, dress codes have absolutely nothing to do with the oppression of females. Consequently it is not sexist. Indeed as was mentioned in the comments, a boy can't wear a short skirt or a jockstrap to school, and so these rules are not reserved only for girls. Ultimately this boils down to a debate about modesty. Should girls be expected, or even forced to cover themselves up to some degree? I believe that in order to reduce the distraction and harm that comes from sexually provocative clothing at school, one must simply limit how much both girls AND boys can show each other. This standpoint was quite astonishingly backed up by Pro who claimed herself that 'Skirts/dresses that are too short and show their butt is also unacceptable in an educational environment.' Given that Pro's initial point was that 'People are taken out of multiple class periods just because their shorts or skirts were too short', they have completely conceded their argument. Consequently you should vote Con. Thank you for the debate, was an interesting one!
Dress Code is Sexist

Jean Kilbourne exclaims, "They (dress codes) send the message that there's a problem with girls. It's basically telling girls that they are sluts and it is telling that they can't control themselves. " Ruthann Robson agreed with Jean Kilbourne's statement and also commented on the issue, "It"s telling women and girls that it"s your responsibility to control boys and men and their presumed aggressiveness, and it"s presuming that one, all boys are heterosexual, and two, all boys are aggressive and it"s kind of giving them permission to be aggressive. " (. http://womensenews.org...) You argued, "I don't think taking girls out of class to put on a longer skirt will seriously have a significant impact on their studies. If it does, then these girls seriously need to get their priorities sorted out. " Some girls are lucky enough to just be pulled out of class for a few minutes, but in some cases if the student refuses to change, him/her will be sent home for the day or will have to wait for a parent to bring them a change of clothes. Although, your statement can be turned around in my favor, "I don't think boys sex drives and hormones will have a significant impact on their studies. If it does, then these boys seriously need to get their priorities sorted out. " Just changed a few words and it supports my argument. As for the booty shorts comment, that was a mere example of something that would be a good reason to dress code girls. Skirts/dresses that are too short and show their butt is also unacceptable in an educational environment. Furthermore, you brought up drunk driving and compared that to rape. Although that had nothing to do with my previous statement about rape culture, it brings up a good point. There are more drunk driving arrests than rape arrests because of, again, sexism. While this is unrelated to the topic, I will comment on it. Most don't believe rape victims, or people blame the victim rather than the rapist due to clothing or the situation in which the incident occurred. Because of that, victims are afraid to speak up about their case because of shame and disbelief from others. Also, male victims of rape aren't often believed because it is presumed that all males want sex, which is not true. To conclude, dress codes in schools are more so targeted at girls, rather than boys. This is a result of sexism. While our views may be different, the statistics speak for themselves.
Dress Code is Sexist

Indeed in an ideal world, boys would switch off their libido when at school. Unfortunately such an idea is incredibly naive, given that it simply doesn't work. Males can indeed control their sexual desires, hence they don't rape any girl they take a fancy to. However it may still impact on their concentration. You say you 'understand if the girl is wearing booty shorts and her butt is hanging out', however I ask why that is unacceptable to you, but wearing a short skirt is a right of girls the world over. Indeed you may not get distracted, but that may be because female libido is far, far less than male. Consequently you wont be as affected. I think it is naive for you to say that boys aren't distracted by sexual attraction. Sexual attraction plays an enormous role in the life of a teenage boy, ask any boy you know, or simply look at the science which shows enormously increased libido during puberty. You say that girls do better because they mature at a faster rate. Indeed this is true! However I ask how you define mature. After all, maturity is a very wishy washy word, which no dictionary has any real definition of beyond 'fully developed'. I would argue emotional maturity, that girls indeed are more developed in, lead to more focus on work. However I ask what would cause an immature person to lose focus? I think 'girls' would spring to the mind of most teenage boys, which then proceeds to sexual attraction. I don't think taking girls out of class to put on a longer skirt will seriously have a significant impact on their studies. If it does, then these girls seriously need to get their priorities sorted out. As for rape culture, what a nonsense phrase. Rapists are criminals, who get punished if proof is sufficient. There were 170,000 rapes in 2015 in the US, yet 1,117,852 drunk driving arrests in 2014. You wouldn't say society encourages drunk driving, yet drunk driving arrests are 6 x more frequent than rapes. Moreover to pretend forcing girls to wear longer skirts encourages rape is simply a ridiculous, untrue statement.
Dress Code is Sexist

The sexual drive of the boys should be controlled by them. It's not like they can't control their own emotions and desires. Plus the girls shouldn't have to pay the price because males can't control their sexual desires. I am bisexual (I like girls as well as boys) and I don't get distracted by girls changing around me or simply showing a little shoulder. Yes you said that boys biologically have larger sex drives due to their raging hormones. I understand that, but despite that fact, a person is in control of their desires. If boys don't focus on their education, we can't just come to the conclusion that it's because of a woman's body. I get distracted by boys faces at school, yet I still manage to do my work fully. Also, it's been scientifically proven that girls are more intelligent than boys because girls mature at a faster rate. Boys then get more intelligent than girls after puberty. And boys just so happen to go through puberty after a girl does. ( https://www.psychologytoday.com... ) Furthermore, taking girls out of class to dress code them and tell them to change affects their overall education as well. I was once pulled out of class for half the day because there was a 2 inch hole in my jeans. I understand if the girl is wearing booty shorts and her butt is hanging out, but a tiny hole in jeans shouldn't be a big deal. It's stuff like that that is perpetrating rape culture.
Dress Code is Sexist

The dress code measures that you oppose with regards to covering up girls exist to reduce the impact of sexual attraction on education and relationships. I say relationships, as encouraging girls to attract boys by wearing short skirts will simply lead to unhappy relationships. A healthy relationship is founded on shared interests and humour. Of course attraction plays a role, however short skirts make physical attraction the main way to seduce boys, which with the unhealthy relationships that follow, will simply lead to misery. However a bigger point is its impact on education. It is an undeniable biological fact that teenage boys have enormous sexual drives. This is due to the hormone imbalances that occur during puberty. Now however disturbing this fact may be, schools must try to minimise how this sexual drive affects the concentration and so grades of half their students. Now schools could give boys a hormonal therapy to reduce their sex drive, however I would argue this is an unforgivable attack on the very nature of being male, and consequently sexist. Or they could reduce the distractions that boys face in the classroom, by banning sex at school, removing short skirts, etc. This may seem like a sexist thing to do, but given that boys are doing far worse than girls at school, I would argue it is something of a necessity. Now boys may be failing at school for other reasons: maybe the school system is architected against them? Maybe the hormone imbalances of puberty that encourage aggression and sexual attraction lead to distraction and so less listening in class? Maybe boys are simply less clever than girls? Whatever the reason, any measures that are put in place to improve the grades of boys (who are currently failing), I would welcome.
Dress Code is Sexist

School's dress code in the U.S is utterly ridiculous. The schools would argue that the dress code is meant to bring professionalism, but it is indeed sexist. These rules specifically target girls and women. People are taken out of multiple class periods just because their shorts or skirts were too short, or their shirt was "too low cut", or they have a rip in their jeans above the knee. School dress codes are not teaching kids and teens about professionalism; they're teaching kids to be ashamed of their natural body. These codes are teaching kids to change themselves for societies views.
Transgender is a mental illness

essentially i aggree with your point but i would like to poin tout it is unfair to thoe who were uner svere peer pressure and would like to also acknowlede them not only as minority sinc they make quite some number recentlyi have always been an enemy of his lgbt movement but the point i want to press is that you cannot say they are minority because of coure not with statistics but with pattern.we see in drugs lcohol smoking etc. you think it is slightly irrelevant but is very much applicable to real earth time
Transgender is a mental illness

A mental illness is a condition which causes disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking. No person is actually born a man in a woman's body etc therefore it is mental and the fact that it affects your thinking in so far as yiu think you are a different gender than you are and you're behaviour if you cross dress or have a sex change etc. I'm not suggesting conversion therapy or any treatment is correct or advisable but it is undeniable that it is a mental illness.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

You're welcome. •"Okay you first say under your 1st Cont that ES are most often unilateral and then you provide some stats. .. how exactly does this link to your value and criterion. " I outlined 2 contentions, and that wasn't one of them. I was clarifying the resolution. If you plan to advocate unilateral sanctions, it doesn't affect your case. •"Your value is morality who exactly determines the morality of an action. ." An objective, outside observer, ie. somebody in the Original Position I explain why above the criterion. •"And you go onto say that under your criterion of "Original Position" that first there's no justification for discrimination because there is no clear distinction. .. my first question is how does this relate" Economic sanctions disproportionately harm those in lower social classes (I outlined 3 reasons why. ) •". .. and then you go on to say how the rights are inalienable but you never really warrant how this is going to be affected by ES. .. ?" Erm, they violate inalienable rights just a little bit in killing 4,500 innocent children every month (among other things such as causing disease, destroying the economy, etc. ) •"Would you agree that it is a nations main priority to protect its citizens at all cost? " No, a nation's main priority should be to act morally. •"Oh another question you say that they use them as a means to an end. .I also ask can you provide another alternative that is going to have less effects. .. if not hmm? " There's tons, such as: Military intervention. Proper military conflict harms far fewer civilians than sanctions and only targets opposing armed forces. Economic incentives. We lose money from sanctions by not trading. Why not continue trading and offer the extra economic benefits as an incentive with the money we save? Actions which target only the culpable leaders, such as refusing travel to other countries or refusing international meeting (as with the Olympics in South Africa) or freezing off-shore bank accounts, etc. Barack Obama holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' with Kim Jong-il and Fidel Castro.
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .Cross Examination Okay you first say under your 1st Cont that ES are most often unilateral and then you provide some stats. .. how exactly does this link to your value and criterion. Your value is morality who exactly determines the morality of an action. . And you go onto say that under your criterion of "Original Position" that first there's no justification for discrimination because there is no clear distinction. .. my first question is how does this relate. .. and then you go on to say how the rights are inalienable but you never really warrant how this is going to be affected by ES. .. ? Would you agree that it is a nations main priority to protect its citizens at all cost? Oh another question you say that they use them as a means to an end. .I also ask can you provide another alternative that is going to have less effects. .. if not hmm?
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

•"The reason this is the value for the round is economic sanctions can provide for societal welfare." We should value societal welfare because sanctions lead to societal welfare. Couldn't I also use this logic to justify: We should value malnutrition because sanctions lead to malnutrition?[1] How does the logic in the above quote differ from that at all? •"it would be immoral for sovereign nations to let this 'state of nature' continually occur." In America we don't give up all of our rights to the government. Why am I not living in a 'state of nature'? Why is a 'state of nature' where there is no government to guarantee rights worse than a 'state of Thomas Hobbes' where there is a government that doesn't guarantee rights? Does this philosopher have a father/son named Calvin? •"Many believe that economic sanctions are imposed to hurt the people within the nation, when in fact it's contrary to this notion." If this is true, why do sanctions do so much damage to innocent civilians? •"[The example of Korea] shows that it is not the sanctions causing suffering but the corrupt governmental officials denying relief efforts for their citizens." Why does one example prove this true? Would my offering a counter-example prove this false? If the problem is that North Koreans haven't been able to get enough food, why is further stopping them from obtaining the needed resources a logical response? Is irrational anger positively correlated to being short? If not, how do you explain Kim Jong-il, Napolean, and Chihuahuas? •"warfare is an option and this option should never be picked over sanctions because warfare inflicts more strife and casualties and collateral damage on the nations both participating in this war." Says who? Where in the NC do you prove this? •"therefore we must pick a tool that can do this and that tool is economic sanctions." Why does 'war is bad' mean 'sanctions are necessary'? •"we can not determine the morality of an action until it has been complted" ...yet we can determine future societal welfare before an action has been completed? If so, why did we sanction Iraq, knowing it would end in failure? •"therefore we have to look at the intended motives behind the action..." If the intention of sanctions is to cut off resources to everyone (including innocent civilians) doesn't that mean we still intended to use people as means to an end? •"you can cross apply my arguments that in my case that defeats this" Could you please copy & paste as an answer the part of your case that proves sanctions don't use people as means to an end? [1] http://web.nps.navy.mil...
Xtianity just another example of idol worship

There is no doubt that the Jewish people desperately want a re-interpretation of Isaiah 53. However, What that re-interpretation consists of is a man-made doctrine, Which no real Apologist will chase after. The DEBATE was about Christianity being labeled as a false idol and the Jewish religion being the true religion. The scriptures from the Old Testament itself put that charge out of it's misery. Since my opponent could not deal with Isaiah 53, All I had to do was keep introducing it.
Xtianity just another example of idol worship

This Xtian responded to a 9000 word response about 10 minutes. HaHaHaHaHa. Notice he failed to address any of the talking points which i brought up. . . That's what he calls a debate? My previous response brought as a precedent an entirely different sugia of the Book of Isaiah. Making a comparison between the 2 sugiot, This depth analysis permits the words of Isaiah to interpret the words of Isaiah. But my Xtian opponent wants none of it. Now Xtianity stands in cursed exile and Jews mock these devil pigs - measure for measure as they mocked Jews for over 2000 years. Jews rule our home land and have restored our Government in Israel. Xtians by contrast languish in exile waiting for their imaginary man: jesus son of Zeus. May these vile Xtians rot together with their despicable religion of hate. Europe has no more "Good Name", The Holocaust proves Xtians as evil wicked scum devils worthy of being gathered up and shot. A blessing: may the bombing of Dresden soon befall all Xtian supporters of the wicked evil church.
Xtianity just another example of idol worship

As has been shown in this DEBATE, Isaiah chapter 53 is the death-nell for anyone trying to prove that the Jewish religion is valid and the Christian religion is invalid, According to even the Old Testament. It wasn't enough for my opponent to give secular history behind his man-made doctrine, His objective was to prove that the doctrine of Isaiah 53 was incorrect. This he could not do. For the ancient Hebrew language of Isaiah 53 was correctly translated.
Xtianity just another example of idol worship

Now let us focus on the second half of Isaiah chapter 53. Starting with verse 6- 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to His own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7. He was oppressed, And he was afflicted, Yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, So he opened not his mouth. 8. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9. And he made his grave with the wicked, And with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, Neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, He shall prolong his days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11. He shall see the travail of his soul, And shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many: for he shall bear their inequities. 12. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, And he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, And he made intercession for the transgressors. ' This chapter is absolute proof that the Messiah was the humble servant who was crucified in 33 A. D. In Jerusalem. As the New Testament teaches, The church that Jesus established (not the commercial Catholic nor those Protestants who worship their great buildings) was handed the kingdom that the Jews first held. (Micah 4:8) That church was never extinguished and has constantly existed since that Pentecost day (Acts chapter 2) in various parts of the world. Therefore, Even according to the Old Testament, The new kingdom (Christianity) is not just another example of idol worship.
Xtianity just another example of idol worship

Isaiah 53 is not a metaphor, Not figurative. Read the chapter carefully. It does not remotely suggest that this man is to be understood as a group of people or a 'nation'. Isaiah 53 is the starting point of Genesis 3:15 The Jewish leaders could not accept the idea of a suffering Messiah. Therefore, The Jewish people have been stuck with their embarrassing interpretation to give to those who inquire of them concerning this scripture. This is where this DEBATE is going to focus. The chapter of Isaiah 53. To focus elsewhere is to just 'chase rabbit's' so to speak. It would be more polite if you would just use the term 'non-Jews' instead of the religious slang words for those not Jewish.
Xtianity just another example of idol worship

c/p: "The Jewish religion addressed the outward physical tokens aimed at one's conscience. " Utter none sense. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, Which the Goyim never accepted not then till today, Revealed the Evil Inclination within the human heart. c/p: "Both use Genesis 3:15 as the starting point. ' Bunk. The concept of exile starts with Adam passes on to Noach and then unto Avram. Its a major theme which the vile Xtian religion knows nothing about. . . Ooops Xtians exist in exile waiting for the salvation of the 2nd coming. The curse of exile the Xtian religion drowns. These arrogant fools declared themselves as the 'new israel' -- justice now Jews rule our homeland and Goyim sink in the mud waiting for the 2nd coming of a myth. c/p: "Isaiah chapter 53" Bunk. The metaphor of the suffering servant refers to the exile of Israel from our homelands. Xtians have no portion in the Torah faith, They never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Moshe anointed Aaron as Moshiach. The prophet Sh'muel anointed David to fill the function of Moshe the law giver. Proof, King Shaul lost the kingdom b/c he failed to keep the commandments. Israel lives as "the nation of priests" b/c Moshe anointed Aaron Moshiach. Xtianity's pathetic substitution theology. . . Keep waiting for the 2nd coming of jesus son of Zeus. c/p: "We see that Christianity came out" Of Greek mythology and Roman writers expressing their counterfeit 'wolf dressed in the clothing of Jews"