BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
many women and girls dressing up like kardashians and does it affect them

If you have seen the styles of young girls and women, then you must have noticed certain patterns in the way they dress.This year 2016 , it seems like a copy of styles of kardashians.I have seen many women many many women emulate the kardashian sisters in their style of clothing im surprised if a word for their clothing exists but isnt there yet, that and also womens clothes have gotten much shorter and tighter which make me feel uncomfortable around them.THe truth about the kardashian clothes that i am referring to refers to clothes kendall and kylie and kim would wear, the dresses khloe would wear with the knee high boots, and umm baseball caps?? are in fashion for women and dresses with the navel showing or short white blouses with the navels and the sleeveless and oh my gosh the short shorts and short short shorts and tight, as well as skinny jeans and some sort of shirt that looks nothing more than an extension of a frilly bra but trust me it only its long by a few inches and it may cover cleage but tha sides and midrift are all exposed so basically a kind of longer frilly bra.The icing on the cake is the straightened hairstyle that kylie has and of course the make up that kylie does. every girl out there wth their contour and winged eyes and matter lipstick end up looking like a clone of kylie jenner. the problem with this is since they end up looking this way well it make me feel uncomfortable since i am for one different and the tighter and shorter clothes just make it hard for a girl who loves clothes as loose as possible. And it could put some sort of pressure on some girls who see others put on a lot of make up .The problem i have with this is YOU LOOK LIKE A KARDASHIAN, YOU DONT LOOK LIKE A HOMELY GIRL I CAN APRROACH BUT YOU LOOK LIKE SOMEONE WHOCOULD HAVE AN ATTITUDE OF A CELEBRITY, i mean its scary how no one goes out in old sweat pants or lack of make up though there are some who go out without make up Thank goodness, but i wanted to ask whether this.
we are no longer evolving

"true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt." This statement is incredibly disjointed. What does the former have to do with the latter, at all? Everyone dies. The environment forcing us to adapt is not a requirement of evolution. "remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animal doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed." 'The weak' breeding does not hinder evolution. "Survival of the fittest', as you are trying to explain, just means that the members of a species who acquire the most favorable adaptations are the ones that will most likely live on, and those traits will over time be the ones that remain in the species. However, just because the human species doesn't exactly follow "Survival of the fittest" anymore, it does not stop us from evolving -- our genes are still randomly chosen when new life is created, and causing adaptations. The adaptations which turn out favorable will overtime become predominant over the less favorable traits. Therefore, we are still evolving. P.S. Fix your shift key.
we are no longer evolving

we are not longer evolving signficantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animal doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school.
Students should not have to wear uniforms.

I would like to use this round to refute my opponents attempts to attack my arguments. She says as one of her first arguments this round that, "Most schools don't have band or art classes, they may have music class which has to do with mostly the instrument The Recorder." This is woefully inaccurate. The choir from my high school (uniformed) was the North Dakota Governor's Choir 2 years in a row. Also, I see no factual basis for this proclamation. I know in my hometown, all 4 major high schools as well as the 3 middle schools all have art classes and extracurricular activities for those who want them. It is not true that there is not art classes that students can take. Even if there are only what my opponent would consider "sufficient creative opportunities" in one school in the country the Con side prevails. She states, "Students of any school in the country should not have to wear [uniform]." By using the word "any" my opponent has shown that if a uniform would work for one school, the con would win the debate. She goes on to say "most schools don't have band or art classes." Implying that some do. Therefore, the argument of students being able to express themselves different ways than in dress prevails. Secondly, my opponent asserts that "most students don't have many friends because they don't know who their TRUE, FULL, personalities." This implies she thinks that it is difficult to make friends at school if you wear a uniform. I can say from personal experience that it is not. I met some of my best friends in a school where we were required to wear uniforms. I disagree personally on this point, the Pro still seems to be working off her stereotype of uniformed students as nerdy goody two shoes style students, this isn't true. Thirdly, by my opponent's second paragraph I assume she was saying something along the lines of "students may feel self conscious while wearing the uniforms." School uniforms are not designed to be looked at, therefore taking the problem of distracting clothing out of the classroom. For this specific reason people are less likely to feel self conscious about how they look, because everyone looks the same. My opponent also states, "It is safer to keep all students shirts tucked in so no gang members are able to hide any weapons such as knifes,guns, ect." I agree and this was a point I made in my constructive, see video above. Fourthly, my opponent very clearly concedes that most students aren't judged on what they wear, therefore her point about wearing clothes as self expression becomes weak, seeing as no body notices anyway. In short I have refuted my opponents contentions. My opponent has made no effort to attack my contention about the economy and has conceded on the point that uniforms make for a safer school environment. I urge a Con vote.
Students should not have to wear uniforms.

Ok, you have explained the three major things. Yes, students can express their ways by music or art, most schools don't have band or art classes, they may have music class which has to do with mostly the instrument The Recorder. Students that wear the uniforms can express their personalities by just being their selves, but most students don't have many friends because they don't know who their TRUE, FULL, personalities. Students take the concept of "Looking Good" in the uniforms most students do have a big of a stomach so if the uniform makes them feel more conscious about their body so that being said by a student it's possible for the student to become Bulimia, Anorexia, ect. If not possible for the student to be self conscious on how they look in the uniform and they claim to enjoy them, that is accepted. Some majority of the students don't like the uniforms because you have to tuck in your shirt. It is safer to keep all students shirts tucked in so no gang members are able to hide any weapons such as knifes,guns, ect. Students wearing the same uniform will be less bullied about what they wear. This is true but most students aren't judged on what they wear and how they wear it. Uniforms don't make anyone look any different on the outside. The labels people are given are Nerd,Jock,Prep,Band Nerd, Science Geek, ect. The labels that people are given stay the same no matter how you dress, it's all based on the way that you act, yes, this does fall into the category of expressing yourself. But my point being is that not all students like the uniforms, yes, they are safer, but most students don't like the way they look in the uniform because they're supposedly not "Thin." Students shouldn't have to wear the uniforms, most think the uniforms are quite comfortable but others or as you would call them the "Misfits" they may not like the colors because they would like to wear pink,purple,black,yellow,green,white,ect,ect.
Students should not have to wear uniforms.

Students of any school in the country should not have to wear because it's taking freedom of expression. Yes, expressing your style can be made in different ways such as the hair. If you're expressing yourself through your hair then that's not really ALL of what you want to express. Most schools that do have uniforms deny to let the average student wear a different color from the uniform such as a hat,scarf's,bows, ect. Most students don't like the way they look in the uniform and most parents accept the idea because it saves money on school clothes and cost less during school supplies shopping. Most students have said, "The uniforms take the expression from students." , "Uniforms should be worn because no one would judge on what each other wear because everyone would be wearing the same thing." Students have spoken for themselves. And it is true that many students will judge each other on what they wear, but it doesn't matter. Uniforms are a way of saying, "I'm a dull student that isn't allowed to wear what I want, however I want it." Uniforms take away that expression of your own personality, who you are, if you take that from a student then most won't be who they really are because they're afraid to either be made fun of for sticking out of the crowd, or breaking the rules but most don't' care about the rules. Uniforms take away who your are and should not be worn to schools.
was obama the correct choice for president by the American people

the burden on the Aff. is to prove that obama is the correct choice for presidency by the American people correct will be defined as best or right choice shall be election and American people will be citizens of the U. S. which he cannot due because all barrack HUSSEIN obama has done is talk literally what has he actually done except for trying to get soldiers out of Iraq which he failed miserably and tried to get health care, what has he actually done for the united states, nothing because he has been too busy going around the world once or twice or maybe even thrice and also please look at the sites below also he cannot prove that obama was the correct choice because he was not elected by the people to be the democratic runner up for president he was chosen by the super delegates kristof. blogs. nytimes. com/2009/10/09/obama-and-the-nobel-peace-prize/ www. msnbc. msn. com/id/33240807/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ ibertarianrepublican. blogspot. com/. .. /america-has-muslim-president-small-town. html - 12 hours ago hotair. com/.
Welfare recipients should undergo the same background checks that gun owners do

My opponent has dropped all of the contentions I rebutted in round one and two.The first contention of mine they conceded to is that "What someone can do with welfare income and what someone can do with a gun are so different and thus require far different regulations."This sentence alone rebutted the entire resolution and yet went totally unaddressed in round three.The attempted rebuttal was that " welfare frauds play a big factor in this crumbling economy, more than gun owners, 10% of the country isn't a vast minority, but wouldn't you not say it is a waste of time worrying about the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding, respected members of their community?"To this, I replied "Currently, only 1.7% are truly on Welfare. http://wiki.answers.com...The reason that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding, respect member of their community is becausethey were all background-checked in order to permit them getting it."Pro failed to reply and this counts as a dropped argument.The second issue I raised, that went uncontested in round three, was that "It would be a waste of time worrying about the vast minority of people who live off welfare which quite frankly allows only the most basic lifestyle possible and thus is so cruel a method to motivate people to get rich that they might as well not bother being frauds if they can avoid such a low wage."Then when my opponent asked "Why is it so bad to want to motivate the poor to do well and to get a job?" I replied "It's not bad at all. The motivation is the fact that being poor leave virtually $0 for luxury of any kind. However we must pay them the bare minimum for food shelter and water so that their children can survive." To which my opponent replied "I agree with you on that sir"Yet another dropped argument.My opponent then goes on an emotionally fuelled rant regarding the IQ of students decreases less and less and regarding his/her own experience of going to a Catholic school. This was all to prove "America's greatness" and how it was based on "Capitalism". However this didn't explain why the government should waste its police force's subsidies on background checks of welfare takers (which would actually take quite a lot of police time and effort) when the welfare itself was such a low income that it would motivate people to work.Thanks for the debate, pro.
Welfare recipients should undergo the same background checks that gun owners do

Okay my bad, I wasn't clear enough, 10% of the population is on some sort of government support, which is pretty much what I am talking about, I just used welfare as a general issue "However we must pay them the bare minimum for food shelter and water so that their children can survive." I agree with you on that sir, but have you seen some of these welfare recipients? A lot of these people are well-abled people who didn't try in high school, didn't try to get into college, but they still get benefits. I don't have a problem with helping the poor class, I have a problem with helping the lazy class "Evidence?" Look at the 1980's and 90's, Reagan did a magnificent job with the economy, he was the broad definition of capitalism. Look at our public education system for example, it works the same way, competition doesn't even exist in our schools, the teachers are getting paid more and more, while the IQ of our students are decreasing less and less, I went to a Catholic school during my grammar years and went to a public high school, I saw a huge difference, when you enforce competition, you give people an incentive to want to try harder and strive to do the best you can, in public schools, literally everyone in my class made the honor roll, same thing goes with business, you try to do better and make the most money you work for, not 1 person does 99% of the work and the other does 1% but they split the money 50-50, look at Cuba, a country bought and sold for on socialism, is that what we should look forward to?
Welfare recipients should undergo the same background checks that gun owners do

Currently, only 1.7% are truly on Welfare. http://wiki.answers.com...The reason that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding, respect member of their community is because they were all background-checked in order to permit them getting it."Why is it so bad to want to motivate the poor to do well and to get a job?"It's not bad at all. The motivation is the fact that being poor leave virtually $0 for luxury of any kind. However we must pay them the bare minimum for food shelter and water so that their children can survive."Economic competition is what made this country great."Evidence? I think this is complete nonsense quite frankly. USA isn't even that great a country anyway. It's just as good as China and Germany for example.
Welfare recipients should undergo the same background checks that gun owners do

Just look at it from a different perspective of dangerous, welfare frauds play a big factor in this crumbling economy, more than gun owners, 10% of the country isn't a vast minority, but wouldn't you not say it is a waste of time worrying about the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding, respected members of their community? Why is it so bad to want to motivate the poor to do well and to get a job? Economic competition is what made this country great
Welfare recipients should undergo the same background checks that gun owners do

What someone can do with welfare income and what someone can do with a gun are so different and thus require far different regulations.It would be a waste of time worrying about the vast minority of people who live off welfare which quite frankly allows only the most basic lifestyle possible and thus is so cruel a method to motivate people to get rich that they might as well not bother being frauds if they can avoid such a low wage.With a gun, however, that person can go around killing people left right and center if they have proven themselves insane before. These people with a gun are far more dangerous than the former with welfare.
Should we ReColonize Africa or at least reconsider doing it? (Minus Slavery of course)

I want to leave this first argument short and sweet. It sounds like what you're saying is you want the US to handle this. Here is why your plan won't work: Hedgemonic transition periods have been known to be the most destabilizing, meaning, handing this over to the US would be almost impossible to do in an orderly fashion. The US has enough on it's plate and in what world do you think Trump would want to handle something like this? After everything we're dealing with do you think we have to time to even consider RECOLONIZING Africa? I think not. Maybe make some minor adjustments to help those in need but if you want to do that, You should be handing this problem over to something like the UN but definitely not the US.
Should we ReColonize Africa or at least reconsider doing it? (Minus Slavery of course)

Why the hell would you want to Re colonize Africa?! You might ask , well I have a simple idea which works like this currently much of Africa is starving and dieing of disease , they don't come as well along as we Westerners do , Africa looks pretty similar as it did 500 years ago (Not really I know but hear me out) They still have lots of tribes and tribal disputes in Politics , "democratic" is not what I would describe an average African Country as they usually abuse their powers.Now I don't mean certain things with "Re colonizing Africa" what my main idea is that the Africans could certain give up their country so that we could improve their situation and make them or at least help them to become close to something what is similar to a Western Society obviously it would take bit of a Decade to get it all working since yeah you can't just simply take over a country and start building roads here and here and all the problems are gone.People obviously want to help other people , and I just thought why bring them to our country and etc when we can go to theirs and help them so they can stay there and enjoy our type lives under our government or a type of Colonial government.
Should we ReColonize Africa or at least reconsider doing it? (Minus Slavery of course)

I DID explain why it wouldn't work, that was like, half my argument. You cannot take my idea on the UN, because that is my counter plan which brings me to the next point. I have a counter plan and all I have to do is prove that yours won't work, or offer a better solution. I don't think all of Europe would agree on this topic. You also agreed saying the UN would be good so let's leave it at that. My solution is better, I win case closed. Unless... you want to take BACK what you said???
Should we ReColonize Africa or at least reconsider doing it? (Minus Slavery of course)

I didn't really see any negative reasons from you're argument as to why we couldn't "take them over" + I wasn't thinking about the US but mainly about Europe but the UN could actually be even better (I think) at doing that.Obviously one single country couldn't be capable of just taking over a country and help them build up that's obvious, but if the UN or Europe could help the divided African countries it would be great in my opinion as mentioned in my previous argument.I could go even more into the depth about the main issues about Africa , for example its democracy where mostly "elected" Ministers or Presidents use their power to sometimes help their own Tribe cause yeah Africa has tribes but that's not the main point I'm here for , I'm here to find out what con arguments there are as to NOT Colonize Africa again.
Are Schools Being Unfair with Restrictions

First of all, my opponent has provided NO evidence as to how the school is too restricting on students. I have already stated the danger of EXE's. My opponent has stated that Facebook,Twitter, Instagram, and Minecraft are blocked. This makes perfect sense, as these sites have absolutely no relevance to school. The school would be too restrictive if they said that you couldn't use the computers even for word, or google docs, which wouldn't happen because having computers would be useless. Not being allowed to complain to the administrator makes sense also, since sites like IBoss help prevent irrelevant sites and potentially dangerous ones to harm the computer. Since my opponent has provided no other arguments. I feel that I have won this round. http://www.iboss.com...
Are Schools Being Unfair with Restrictions

I do not know what school you go to, or what circumstances that led to the restrictions made at your school, so I will argue the points at face value. First, EXE files can be very dangerous, as since you mentioned EXE, makes me know you have windows at school. Having blocked EXE files during elementary school, since students are less likely to run into malicious items, since there is more supervision. Second, as to blocked sites, what types of sites are you referring to? I am assuming that sites like YouTube and Facebook are blocked at school, which makes sense. School is a place for learning, not leisurely fun. If you want YouTube and Facebook, then you are free to use them outside of school. I rest my case for this round.