BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

Saying that we live in a non-perfect world is a completely different problem. You said that getting a weapon in the U.S is easy, but this is not related anyhow to this question. Religious organisations will have to deal with the fact that everyone thinks differently and since there are already bikinis that show part of the breasts, and they don't mind it, they should not mind women being completely topless. How can this be related to violence? How can it lead to assault and rape? You can't say that it will happen for sure. We see rapes happen all the time whether women are dressed modestly or in bikini. Since more and more women will be topless, criminals will be scared to assault because of their large number. Forbidding women to expose their breasts is more problematic since it will give them the idea that they are weak. They should have the right to do it.
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

" but they don't have a sexual purpose except maybe for getting men excited before sexual intercourse". Really, you are asking for consequences? If they don't have a purpose, except for getting men excited about sex, this will lead to an increase of rape and sexual assault. While yes in a perfect world, this would be absolutely o.k., we must understand that the world we live in, is not. For example we still have problems in regard to woman's rights including: allowing rapist's to sue for custody of children, creating pay inequalities because of a gender bias, and finally, we still unfortunately live in a society where a woman is expected to lean on a man for support. Society in it's current form is just not ready for such a drastic change, and to do so would spark violence against, and would be a counter-productive in the long run. For example, let's say hypothetically, a law that allows woman to go topless passes. Woman all over the country would celebrate and show of their newly won rights. The backlash would be severe though, in people who are conservative leaning, and almost any religious organization would push for it's repeal. Not only this, bu the woman themselves are in danger of violence, because unfortunately, in the United States, obtaining a weapon is incredibly easy, to those who should not have one, and such an upset of current social norms, would almost immediately spark a backlash from those who disagree. While yes,in a perfect world, Woman would have perfectly equal rights, we do not live in a perfect world, and to do such a drastic move would be disastrous. Sources: http://distractify.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

Breasts can indeed be arousing to see for men but they remain an non-reproductive organ, which means it is not sexually explicit. Furthermore, if we accept today's clothes it means we almost accept nudity, since a lot of the body is exposed. If we don't let women show there breasts then we shouldn't let them show their legs too, even there necks. Anyhow, breasts remain different from other body parts, they are essential for a baby's development but they don't have a sexual purpose except maybe for getting men excited before sexual intercourse. Furthermore, I would like to know , what consequences there would be, if women exposed there breasts?
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

You make a good point, " Any women that see's other women's breasts that are bigger then hers will have to accept the fact that not everyone is built the same". What you'rs saying is, not everyone is built the same, and i completely agree. From this perspective we can understand that if two woman are different, than wouldn't be logical to conclude a man and a woman are different, and therefore, should be treated differently. With a basic understanding of anatomy, it is found that the breast are in fact sexual in purpose, as they are considered vital in the reproductive process. They do not need to be directly involved with the actual act of sex, but they play a role in raising of babies and infants, with without which, many babies would die. Also, we must not degrade the values and standards of society further just because there is already an ongoing decline. "If those so called 'explicit' clothes are allowed, then exposing breasts should be too." Just for the same reason we shouldn't legalize public nudity because we are already allowed to leave our arms uncovered, we should't legalize exposed breasts because people can wear tight jeans.
Women should be allowed to be topless in pools and beaches.

The fact that pools and beaches are public means that people should be allowed to visit them without strict rules like in private areas. Any women that see's other women's breasts that are bigger then hers will have to accept the fact that not everyone is built the same, being ashamed is a personal problem. Little children that have not been through puberty will not be negatively affected in anyway by exposure to women breasts. As the for the teens who are going through puberty, they will develop a maturity about the subject, and so they will understand by talking with their parents, some unanswered questions. The idea of hiding breasts is more detrimental to women as it shows there fear of being harassed, while by exposing them, they will show pride and maturity. Today, we see a lot of women wearing loose blouses and bikini tops which expose their cleavage, this is not very different from exposing the full boobs, since some bikini tops are made low quality and can even expose the nipples when submerged under water. Models of clothing today are more opened to women, like short skirts and tight jeans. If those so called 'explicit' clothes are allowed, then exposing breasts should be too.
Muhammad was a bad person

Pro’s case in its entirety a shotgun[1] of bare assertions[2] -informal fallacies, all thus rightly dismissed until otherwise proven. Gish Gallop: “the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal… frequently employed in character-limited debate medium”[3] set here to 2000 characters making it impossible for proper rebuttal. Pro provided no reliable sources for his claims only bare references, & made no effort to prove what exactly the Prophet did & why exactly is it reprehensible thus failing to fulfill his burden of proof, thereby violating all the rules of the debate. ‘Muhammed’ could be replaced with any random name in Pro’s R2 & it wouldn’t change its invalidity, being crippled with the absence of any proper argument (conclusion soundly inferred from a valid premise supported by sound evidence) & the resort to false labels, fictitious claims & fallacious interpretations, all further impairing an already weak case. Particularly: 1. Pro falsely labels the Prophet a ‘warlord’: “leader able to exercise military control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state”[4], where in fact himself was the head of the sovereign state established under the Constitution of Medina[5], thus contradicting the definition. 2. Pro fictitiously claims Aisha was impregnated by age 9 when she never was pregnant, & that the Prophet beat her when she herself states: “[he] never beat any of his servants or wives”[6]. 3. Pro pretends “kill them” in verse 4:89 to refer to apostates, where in fact it refers -as per 4:88- to Munafiqeen: traitors who pretended to be Muslims while hostile against them. Thus Muslims instructed to “kill [the Munafiqeen]” until they cease hostility: “So if they withdraw and do not fight you and offer you peace, then God gives you no way against them.”4:90[7] 1 goo.gl/4jGTXA 2 goo.gl/c4agtL 3 goo.gl/7p1Huw 4 goo.gl/YTzzgC 5 goo.gl/kNBRSE 6 goo.gl/guw5xu 7 goo.gl/jn36Mz
Muhammad was a bad person

I am going on vacation so this is going to be my first and last argument. I have tons more but I cannot give them to you because of the character limit. I would like for you to try to debunk every single one of my claims instead of skipping them. I will try to post as much as I can below. Muhammad married a 6-year-old and got her pregnant when she was 9 (ANSAAR, VOLUME 5 BOOK 58, NUMBER 234). I understand marrying young people was a norm back then. However, Muhummud was a prophet, he should have known it was wrong. Not to mention he had many wives. Muhummud not only married a 6-year-old, but he also hit her (SAHIH MUSLIM, BOOK 36, NUMBER 6597). Muhammad was involved with commanding the killing of certain women (IBN ISHAQ 819, 995), said that women made up the majority of hell (SAHIH MUSLIM, BOOK 36, NUMBER 6597), and there was a woman stoned to death as to his individual orders (MUSLIM 17:4206). Muhammad was a warlord who killed many Christians and Jews. Muhammad also had quite a few slaves. These female slaves were gained through battle after slaughtering their fathers. Muhammad felt like it was his divine calling to kill non-muslims (MUSLIM 1:33). Muhammad murdered people who insulted him (BUKHARI 56:369). Muhammad taught his followers to kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews (QUR'AN 9:29). Muhammad instructed his followers to kill apostates (QUR'AN 4:89). The QUR'AN teaches us punishment over compassion (QUR'AN 24:2). Muhammad's last words were, "MAY ALLAH CURSE THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS FOR THEY BUILT THE PLACES OF WORSHIP AT THE GRAVES OF PROPHETS" (BUKHARI, VOL. 1, #427).
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

Closing statement. (I'm on my mobile, please forgive for minor spelling errors.) Gun laws exist for a very good reason. It is to prevent people who may use guns in a way that is harmful to themselves and society. I have given examples and reasoning in my previous arguments, and Pro has not refuted them. My opponent makes good points about guns. Indeed, people break the law everyday, and criminals will get their hands on anything illegal if they wish enough. Certain gun laws today (such as the "gun free zone" where they don't check you for guns) do in fact harm law abiding citizens from practicing their liberty. Such laws should be amended. However, a majority of the gun laws are likely useful in preventing shootings and such. In an ideal world, those who wish to use guns for legitimate defensive or recreational purposes would not feels the restrictions of gun laws. However, this is not an ideal world, and things must be sacrifices to prevent gun crimes. Also, modern technology has provided with many non-lethal but effective defensive weapons, such as stunguns and tranquilizers. I myself am not quite sure what President Obama is trying to do, so that will not be something I would debate. Thank you.
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

Thank you, you have made some good points to my arguments. We are all different people and just because I believe in a certain topic doesn't others should follow them and honestly LaPierre is one of that 28% radicals. Guns have been around for centuries now and they are going to advance just like the rest of the world. You can't hurt the everyday citizen because of one person actions. You have to set an example to the criminals that do the same thing in the future so maybe they will think twice about what they do.\ My solution to this "crisis" is not to take away, but to inform. The media makes guns and gun owners the devil and in my daily life I get people coming to my house saying hurtful things to me just because I have a tool to defend my family. We should teach the people and our posterity how to safely handle a firearm. So all the groups, committees, and people that say that guns kill people need to look at the POV of gun owners and the other way from victims of gun violence. So my point to all this is to find solutions that not hurt one side. Our government was built on agreements and compromises. We should be doing that instead of wasting all of our at blaming. That is what Obama is doing and I will save that for another debateThank you
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

My opponent has willingly admitted that the debate resolution was not phrased in a way that he wishes. Please give Pro the conduct point for admitting. However, a debate is a debate, and I will have to continue arguing under the agreed resolution. This will be a rebuttal. “Also, 71% of NRA actually is in favor of background checks because it works. ” Yes, 90% of the population supports background checks, but apparently not the NRA spokesman (See video: NRA Wayne LaPierre does not support private sales background checks, 2:20). Wayne LaPierre says “I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it (background checks) does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors”. . http://www.youtube.com... “What's wrong with armed guards? ” Nothing is wrong with armed guards. But your argument is does not favor you, since school armed guards are hired by the state, and the state is not limiting itself from owning guns. “If does didn't stop Newtown, Auora, and Virginia Tech, what will. ” These shootings were not prevented precisely because of gun laws that are not strict enough, enforced enough, or good enough. Stating that the current gun laws did not prevent shootings is not grounds enough to say that NO gun laws work. “If a bomb goes off in a public building, you blame the bomber right? ” This is a false analogy. Bombs are different from guns. Bombs are banned, but they can be homemade, whereas guns are more difficult to be homemade. “We need guns to fight back. ” (Prphs) I have stated in my previous argument that when we do need to fight back, we can import guns from foreign countries, since the law does not matter anymore. I also stated that guns are no longer the primary forms of weaponry that this world uses. “The government has weapons such as artillery, tanks, tactical missiles, drones, chemical weapons, etc…” I am for a well-organized militia, like the government army already is. My opponent has conceded that the 2nd Amendment should be changed. For my opponent: I do agree that gun control laws need a redo. Thank you.
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

My challenger has made some goods and frankly I made a mistake in the title. I don't want ALL gun control gone, just some regulations. Also, 71% of NRA actually is in favor of background checks because it works. What's wrong with armed guards? Recently there was a school shooting in Atlanta Georgia, but it was stopped by and armed guard at the school. I don't remember hear about that. Frankly, there are over 2'000 federal gun laws right now. If does didn't stop Newtown, Auora, and Virginia Tech, what will. If a bomb goes off in a public building, you blame the bomber right? Well why blame the gun for a shooting, it doesn't make sense. Yes the Constitution was created over 200 years ago, but not only the 2nd Amendment should be updated. People talk differently now than they did before so they should change the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was meant so that if the government or a foreign country should gain too much power, we can fight back. The British Soldiers in the Revolution were trained trained and had state of the art technology and we still beat them. If a foreign nation were to step foot on out nation's soil, then the people should use their rights and fight back. It's the you never know factor. So my mistake for the title of this debate and I really want LESS gun control, not none. your move
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

Good luck. With your point on that the 2nd Amendment not dealing with today's weapons. The U. S Constitution is a "living document" so it goes through the years and will be updating with the times and into the future. How is the the NRA not closer to the solution? They are not trying to rid the regulations of firearms, the only thing is that it should be reasonable, its Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor against illegal guns who wants no one to posses firearms. Now in this day and this society, people should not have to rely on the government for protection. In fact, 98% of the people who purchases firearms are the ones that use it for the right reasons like sporting, hunting, and self-defense. Why should the politicians say I can't use a certain weapon. I'm not saying like a RPG or a Mini-gun. In my days I had use many different weapons and the one I feel comfortable with is a semi-automatic AR-15. If I were to draw the political line of the United States with Conservatives on the right and Liberals on the left and I put guns in the middle, the liberals would want more background checks, ban on "assault weapons", and certain Democratic supporters, only guns for police and too bad for citizens. The Conservatives want less government regulations, not totally free market, but less regulations. What I don't mean is that I can go into a sporting goods store and buying three rifles and 5,000 rounds of ammunition, I mean keeping the background checks and specifying the reasons you need and document it. The only thing is not banning high capacity clips and because they are not part of the solution. The solution is to keep citizens protected and then criminals and robbers would think twice on robbing a person because that person might have a firearm and will still have his life. That will be one less criminal and that person will not harm anyone else. Thank you
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

I would like to accept. First, allow me to help clarify the terms. 1. "Gun control" shall be defined as a limit posed by the government that restricts a citizen's rights to own firearms. 2. The resolution can be rephrased as "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".BoP should be shared.I will be arguing for "The right of the people to bear arms should be limited."My main arguments:I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.II. Self defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.III. The NRA is not closer to the "solution" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today. Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.Thanks.
Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

The government should not infringe on the Second Amendment Obama is far from the solution on Gun Control. Why should people tell me what to use to protect my family. if it's an AR-15 or a double barreled shotgun that I use, it should be fine. The NRA is closer to the solution than the Liberals are on Capitol Hill are. The 2nd Amendment says a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. A person with a gun is a lot faster in dealing with an intruder than the police.An average time for police to respond to a 911 call is about 4 minutes and a private citizen response is about 30 seconds. Which one is faster and gets the job done quicker?
Accept this for a win/tie.

You serve a noble cause. Trolls have always been one of the pillars of the fantasy genre. I, myself, being a controversial, hated & beloved wizard of words aim to depose of you with an utter defeat. In the Land of D'Org, kings, queens, & peasants laud me for my bold, riveting presentation of syntax wizardry, thus I shall recieve votes of approval. Unless the Dark Fairy Queen sends forth her silly, little minions to upset the elements to effect a tie. I pray the gods bless me triumph.SKS
A mixed economy more dependent on socialism in beneficial to the United States

The less a government regulates an economy, the more that economy thrives. That is because more regulation increasingly stifles competition. The more competition is stifled, the less incentive people have to work hard. With less incentive to work hard, productivity begins to suffer, and the economy grows more stagnate. Here is a list of the countries that rank in the top ten of economic freedom. These countries have the most successful economies in the world. 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. Australia 4. Ireland 5. New Zealand 6. United States 7. Canada 8. Denmark 9. Switzerland 10. United Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org...
A mixed economy more dependent on socialism in beneficial to the United States

Definitions: Mixed Economy: an economic system containing aspects of both capitalism and socialism Socialism: An economic system that vests the ownership, capital and means of production into the community as a whole. I am not advocating complete socialism. What the thesis is proposing is that the people of the United States would be more successful as a group if our mixed economy moved from more capitalistic to more socialist. Even though this is a three round debate, I will allow my opponent to make his opening statement. I then propose that the bulk of our arguments be presented in round two and our conclusions and final arguments be presented in round three. I look forward to a stimulating and informative debate.
Youtube debate: Topic -"In the Beginning..."

Youtube Video Debate-The topic is Secular Genesis(CON) vs. Biblical Genesis (PRO)Also known as "Science vs. Religion" concerning the beginning of the Universe.The only source limitation is: You must use Youtube Videos. I will be debating for Biblical Genesis (Pro).Rules: No text arguments (At All)-Neither side is allowed to use the Comments section-Only Youtube Videos may be used to argue -Each video can not exceed 5 minutes-No more than 2 videos may be posted per round, per side.-Round 1 is acceptance only. (Opponent may write "I accept".)-You may NOT film yourself and place the video on youtube. All arguments shall be third party.-Videos may not contain profanity or outright slander. (We can poke a little fun, but no flagrant attacks.)I wanted to see if this format works. Let's try to have fun with it.
There is Really 3 sexual genders and not 2

Con claims that only non humans can be hermaphrodites. Google Dictionary of the word disagrees and states clearly a person can be hermaphrodite. https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=hermaphrodite+define&oq=herma&aqs=chrome. 2. 69i57j69i60j35i39l2j0. 16848j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1 Con then states that it has been proven that transgender people under medical examination that a transgender person shows up as the sex they identify as in the sexual orgains located in the human brain. As before they transition they have one set of sexual orgains in areas of the gut and another in the brain they meet the above cited accepted use of the word hermaphrodite. In addition Con demtritites an acceptance that all other sexual organisms known to science have 3 genders but does not make any agrument on why this would not apply to humans as well; as all other biological processes, And scientific research show that humans are just another form of sexual organism with a higher than average IQ. Con also implies that I am presenting this agrument in a way that would be offensive to the LGBTQ community when my argument gives a scientific provable case for their fundamental rights. A simple examination of their DNA show mutations on the sexual chromosomes, X and Y genes, Proving in a factual way that they were born LGBTQ and have a fundamental right to be given the same rights and privileges afforded to non LGBTQ human beings. I simply have applied the same logic of the fundamental facts of biology the the ancient world gave them to be themselves because there is 3 sexes in nature and not two.