Womens in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts outside.

===Definitions===Should will refer to "obligation or duty"[1]. That means in order to show that anyone should do anything, one must show why they have some sufficient reason to do it whereby a legitimate obligation is created.The rest of the resolution is self-explanatory and I doubt my opponent will employ any semantics. I will also refrain from doing so as I don't see it as necessary to win this debate.===Arguments===*Refutation of Pro*My opponent's first contention attempts to employ a complete misrepresentation of moral causality and unjustifiably equivocates it with regular causality. For instance, we would not say that a rock has has performed a morally causal action if it rolls down a hill and kills someone at the bottom. This is because there is a clear distinction between actions which only have a generically causal effect and actions which have a morally causal effect. The rock's effect on the person it killed was generically causal in that it would not be held responsible for the action and thus a morally relevant obligation is not existent. Stated more clearly in conjunction with human actions though, an example will be helpful/Stated more clearly, the responsibility for a morally relevant action lies with the person who imposes their irrational preference on others. The Jews were not responsible for the Holocaust because they chose to be Jewish or chose to remain within Nazi territory although this certainly played a generically causal role. The culprits who were morally responsible for such an atrocity were the ones who took that specific characteristic and believed it to grant them moral permissibility in employing force and aggression against the Jews. My opponent in his contention fails to distinguish between something causing something and something having a moral relevancy in causing something.Contention II. "the womens are talking against men while doing this".In his second contention, my opponent argues from the hidden presupposition that women have a moral obligation to obey men and that since some men have commanded them to not show body parts outside of their dress, they have a moral obligation to obey. This contention is wrong on many levels but I will only bring up two in this debate.Refutation A. Mutually incompatible demands. Different men have different opinions on the subject of whether women ought to show body parts or not. Many men in the Western world with more socially liberal values are of the opinion that there is no obligation of women to hide their bodies and that the true injustice is forcing them to do so under the threat of force. My opponent has generalized all men as having dominion over all women and thus is open to the criticism that any man can then easily counteract any other man's command to a women. Seeing as this is a reductio though it more shows the unreasonableness of my opponent's unsupported presupposition.Refutation B. Lack of legitimate gender dominion. As I said at the beginning of my refutation, my opponent's point of dominion is the result of a hidden presupposition which he has utterly failed to defend and has merely assumed into his argument. Of course, this is not acceptable in debate and since my opponent has failed to qualify his supposition with rational argument, there is no reason to adopt it or treat it seriously. Summarizing Christopher Hitchens, since it has been purported without evidence we may discard it without evidence.The resolution has been negated. I now pass the debate back over to Pro.===Sources===[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...