BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it should be against the law for women to be topless in public

My opponent seems to agree, as thus party has yet to refute, with the argument that I made in round 1 which is: 'Society has classified female breasts as mature/offensive content' and I shall take the liberty of using it as a truth. In the second round, my opponent has only argued that simply because the majority supports something doesn't mean that it is morally correct. However, it is important to remember that the debate topic revolves around a law; something that was put in place in the best interest of the people whilst allowing the population of all human rights. As for human rights, I shall use the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which has been ratified by 167 countries worldwide and currently stands as the basic standard for human rights. (Source: http://treaties.un.org...) (Source: http://www2.ohchr.org...) As the freedom to expose female breasts is not covered in said document, the banning of such would not infringe on anything that one might consider a basic right. In other words, banning the exposure of female breasts isn't wrong. Since the banning of such act isn't considered wrong by any reasoned or widely endorsed standard, it should lie solely on the preferences of the people as to whether it shall be allowed or not. And as I have proven in the first round, society still sees it as mature/offensive content. Therefore, lawmakers shouldn't go about trying to legalize the exposure of female breasts in public realms.
it should be against the law for women to be topless in public

PROs only argument so far is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. just because many or most people support a law, doesnt mean that they are right. just because most people might be against children seeing boobs, doesnt mean that children shouldnt see boobs. if most people found hugging in public to be taboo, should we arrest people for hugging? in much of the middle east, women are required to wear full body coverings - do you support that too? just because society makes laws, doest mean they should have made those laws. "most people" can be wrong.
it should be against the law for women to be topless in public

First, I would like to propose that we leave breast feeding out of this as it is pretty much a necessity and, as always, necessities are basic civil liberties and aren't covered by laws. Modern (Western) society has come to widely accept that putting female breasts on public display is a taboo. It is less so than the sight of a vagina or penis but none-the-less, it is a taboo. Whenever we turn on a family filter or safe search, regardless of device, breasts will be blocked out. I would also like to argue that everything put on display in public should be suitable for all audiences, from the two sources provided below we can clearly see that nudity, however brief, is reserved for audiences older than thirteen. (Source: http://www.xbox.com...) (Source: http://www.mpaa.org...) Sources: http://www.google.com... http://www.bing.com... http://www.dailymotion.com... http://www.youtube.com... (Both Dailymotion and Youtube have videos containing female breasts and require both logging in and age confirmation but I do not wish to link them directly for obvious reasons.) It is evident that society has classified female. breasts as mature/offensive content and that it should required of entities to restrict access said content to people of certain age. Therefore, since it is only fair for everyone to view everything in public, female breasts shouldn't be shown.
Life is easier for women than it is for men.

Well, since there was no response, I'll just close with this..... My dad passed away 10 years ago today. The strength that my mother showed after his death has been an inspiration in my life. All of a sudden, she was a single mother of three with a mountain of bills that didn't care that she had just lost her husband. She didn't make NEAR as much as my dad, but she kept our heads above water and turned our suddenly empty house back into a home. I know the struggles that I've faced in my life and they're nothing compared to hers. She's been my anchor in times of storm and a comfort during my heartbreaks. She was like that for all three of us kids. It was no easy task. For that, I know that SHE did NOT have it easier than ME.
Life is easier for women than it is for men.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the argument posted in support of the ludicrous statement that women have it easier than men. There's more to life than money. The points that you bring up are weak at best. I'll come back to them in a moment. I'd like to say a few things first. It seems to me that you want to debate whether women have it easier today or not. If you wanted to go back in history, it's easy to see that they have lived a much harder life than we have. So, I'll stick to life in the last 10 years. The Bureau of Justice Statistics put out a report in 1999 that states 91% of all rape victims in America are women. Also, in a report that was issued in 2006, a woman is raped or sexually assaulted EVERY TWO MINUTES. That's easier?? A report posted in October of this year by UNICEF, The World Bank, and other international organizations, found that somewhere in the world, a women dies EVERY MINUTE from complications related to pregnancy. Have you ever heard of a man dying because of a pregnancy??? I'll save the rest of my arguments for my next posting. Right now, I'd like to review your arguments... The thought that men work and women are sitting at home is outdated. The Department of Labor found that in 2006, 57% of every woman over the age of 16 is in the work force. That's more than half. So, you can't really say that "most women" are sitting at home or that they want to sit at home. For your second point, there's no real factual basis for it, so I'll just shoot from the hip as well. While it may be true that some women may go after a guy for money, men do the same. The reason that you may not realize it, is because no one has written a song about it. Also, haven't you ever heard of a "Trophy Wife"??? A man marries a woman just because she's beautiful, then kicks her to the curb when she gets older. What you say about the draft is true. The Selective service is only for males. However, I think there's a flaw in your theory. That's the for the people who will be forced to join. In 2002, women made up over 15% of the United States Armed Forces. In 2003, the Department of Defense found that women hold an average of 80% of all jobs open to them in the military. A veteran and the brother of veteran, there's nothing worse on earth than sitting down in front of the television and watching the news reports. At least as a soldier I had some control over what happened to me. When I was at home and my brother was in Iraq, we could only sit and wait for the phone call that he was either coming home or that he had died. And THAT is far worse.
Life is easier for women than it is for men.

Throughout people's lives, they go through hardships and good times, but despite what other people think, I believe that Women's lives are much easier than men's. First of all, Most women expect the man to earn all the money in the household. This means a man must commit himself to hours and hours of slaving behind a desk, or hours of grueling physical labor. All this goes on while the woman stays home and takes care of the children. Second of all, a lot of times, men get used by women. Women who are formally known as "gold diggers" go after a man's money, and then leave him when they want to, taking half his fortune with them. Third, Women cannot be drafted into the Armed Forces. When it is a time of war, eventually a draft will be instituted, and all men are crossing their fingers that they wont have to go. While the men are crossing their fingers, the woman is sitting back and not worrying at all, because she knows she won't have to go fight.
Transgender

" I;m just saying that what ever they're comfortable with thay should do it's their choice and life not ours to decide"I understand that, I'm pro tolerance. However, we must put some limits in order to stop freedom to turn into debauchery. If we permit people to enter whatever bathroom they want, there would be non transgender man entering into the females' bathroom with malicious aims( you know what I mean). Also, It would be awkward and uncomfortable for people to share the bathroom with people from the opposite gender (or that have the appearance of that gender). That's why I propose that you have to use the bathroom of the gender you identify in appearance and no other. Obviously, this should be regulated to stop people from pretending to be transgender just for the sake of their malicious aims.
Transgender

" If you were born a girl and want to became a man well if there is NO sex change then they should stay in ladies but after sex change they should go to men's because they identify as a man therefore that is correct and how they wanted to be is they changed. "Let's examine this other quotes from Pro on round :"What ever genitals you've got in your pants (or in your skirts!) shouldn't identify who YOU are as an individual." So Pro said what bathroom you are able to go depends on your genitals but previously she had said your genitalia didn't matter. Pro contradicts herself.As I said earlier, people should use the bathroom of the gender they are. If they changed their gender, then they must use the bathroom of their new gender. However, this must be regulated by the authorities to stop people from acting as transgender for malisious intentions.
Transgender

"hey you are a man, you can't be here". Like I said..... If you were born a girl and want to became a man well if there is NO sex change then they should stay in ladies but after sex change they should go to men's because they identify as a man therefore that is correct and how they wanted to be is they changed. but I see your point but no i still don't agree. i see you in the view of bias Loose the Bias point
Transgender

What's in your pants doesn't define who you are. I'm sorry, but it's true. Simply because you were born one gender, doesn't mean you should be forced to believe that's your only option for you to define who YOU are. If you think of yourself as a female, go use the female's restroom. No one should have tell you that you're not a woman, or you're not a man, simply because of the role you were assigned at birth. Many members of society today still have a problem with that. But what's so hard about accepting who you are inside AND out? If were born one gender, but see yourself as another, why do you have to be so unhappy to fit into the roles the world around you says what they THINK you'd fit best? What ever genitals you've got in your pants (or in your skirts!) shouldn't identify who YOU are as an individual. And it sure as hell shouldn't define what door you're allowed to walk into to relieve your bladder. Forcing transgenders to use particular bathrooms is encouraging violence. Transgender PoC in particular are at a very high risk of sexual assault, rape, and hate crimes than any other group. Public venues are the second most common place where transgenders are attacked which includes bathrooms. They are just people trying to use a bathroom. Let them go in the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identification. and you saying transgender people don't deserve respect is wrong on SO MANY DAMN LEVELS!!!!!! like maybe you don't deserve respect??? have you ever thought of it that way? most transgender people feel different at a young age and probably don't even know that they are transgender. and every human being or living creature deserves respect and equality . take Black and White segregation for example... people made black have different area's so your pretty much saying transgender should be here???? I don't know. but just think about it:)
Transgender

" if you are a transgender people should, one Respect "I disagree with this. Just being transgender is not enough to deserve respect from the others. Transgenders are not saint people or anything like that. They don't deserve respect just because they are transgender. Respect is something you must earn through action and attitudes, not just because you are one way or another. I mean by this that all transgenders should be disrespected? No, what I mean is that being transgender does not guarantee you respect."let them make there own decisions for instance, Locker room problems, lets say the person was born a girl and is trans, they were born with the brain of a girl. and should make the decision. if they have a sex change then I would go more towards the side of boys locker room but still not say anything and keep my mouth shut with them being their own person and can think by themselves."This would cause a lot of problems. If we followed what Pro said, we would have girls in the boy rooms and viceversa. That's why, if someone changes his/her gender, then he/she must use the locker room of that gender. Also, the gender situation must be declared to the identification part of the government. This would stop people from acting like trans just to get into the other gender locker room.Equity is good, but we should be careful.
Transgender

I Personaly think that if you are a transgender people should, one Respect and two let them make there own decisions for instance, Locker room problems, lets say the person was born a girl and is trans, they were born with the brain of a girl. and should make the decision. if they have a sex change then I would go more towards the side of boys locker room but still not say anything and keep my mouth shut with them being their own person and can think by themselves.
supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus the state

con relies on the 14th amendment to justify his stance. he doesn't say that the supreme court used that stance which perhaps they didn't. all i'm arguing about anyway is that the second amendment doesn't save gun rights anyway and apparently he is indirectly agreeing with me. con says we know what the framers had in mind and their intent but he continues to not say either. he basically is not arguing the side he is suppose to be arguing but getting lost in explaining how precedent works, irrelevant to the debate.
supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus the state

con basically just gave me a lesson on judicial interpretation. he doesn't say why the second amendment says what he thinks it does. at best he said we have to look at hte framers from the intent, but doesn't give any quotes from them. even if he did though, what one person thought is inconsequential to what the amendment says if they are different. and the second amendment seems to protect state militias, not individual rights and i gave my reasons with no proper rebuttal to those reasons. it is telling that any run of the mill libertarian will tell you the bill of rights is an indictment against hte federal government... so suddently we are to believe the second amendment is against the states?
Should mark webber be hailed as the greatest

I accept. Mark Webber has won zero.F-1 World Drivers' Championships. You read that! Zero, 0, none, nill, natta. So he cannot be hailed as the greatest. Compared to Lewis Hamilton who has at least won it once in 2008. Vettel is a much better racer than Mark Webber with three World Drivers' Championships. Michael Schumacher has most consequtive WDC with six. So in order for Webber to even be considered to be hailed as the greatest he must win seven more F-1 World Driver's Championships. Finally, you spelt power wrong. Good day to you sir!
George W. Bush illegally stole to 2000 election.

I love this debate. I'll gladly go into a part 2 with you if you'd like, anyway... It is a well-known fact that criminals can't vote in Florida. It is also a well-known fact that in the 2000 primaries, Al Gore was cleaning up with the African-American vote. Katherine Harris compiled a list of people, the majority of which were African-American and said that they were felons and couldn't vote. The list had 57,700 voters on it. *400 people on Katherine "Henchman" Harris's list of "felons" were convicted of a crime from 2007, keep in mind that this list was compiled in 2000. *People were convicted of a crime before they were born. *54% of the list was African-American. *4,000 of the names had no conviction date for the "felon" *If you were black and anyone with your name had committed a crime anywhere in the U.S., you were listed as a felon. *15% of the "felons" weren't even convicted of a crime. (Remember that Bush 'won' by 537 votes.) *90.2% of the people on the list were proven innocent of any crime they were charged with. Another list, submitted by the Governor of Texas in 2000 was submitted of 8,000 "felons" who had moved to Florida. *93% of the people on the list were incorrect. Clayton Roberts, one of George W. Bush's as I like to call them "henchmen" was talked about by Greg Palast... "PALAST: They will be putting our evidence to Database Technologies. Their vice-president told us that "manual verification by telephone calls" does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. So were they paid to produce a list which they knew would name thousands of innocent black people? In fact DBT told Newsnight that Clayton Roberts and the State of Florida: "... wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon." So did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? You don't have to be black. In Palm Beach, America's privileged nurse their tans and their anger."(1) According to Clayton Roberts, manual verification by telephone calls doesn't mean calling anyone. Basically tons of people who weren't felons were cheated out of voting(and you can't say well, Bush won out of the people that did vote because you know damn well he didn't do that either, and don't say no, I don't know that because you do.) Also, illegal absentee ballots were submitted, God Bless our troops but their illegal ballots were carefully selected to ones that would help George W. Bush. For instance the average amount of illegal ballots in counties where Bush won were 4 of 5, where he lost, 2 of 5. And finally, some machines were rigged(2). Thank you. Please vote based on who had the better argument. Sources--- (1)http://www.gregpalast.com... (2)http://www.youtube.com...
George W. Bush illegally stole to 2000 election.

Yes, yes. I'm sorry I only posted it in 5 rounds so that I wouldn't forget to post. The first round was basically nothing, anyway... There clear evidence that 22% of the overseas ballots are illegal under U.S. election laws(1). Katherine Harris, a Floridian henchman of Jed Bush, G.W's brother, sent out a memo to all ballot counters saying to include all ballots whether postmarked before the deadline or not. To defend this, they compiled a montage of sob stories with overseas troops saying that they just wanted their vote to count(2). Disprove those? (1)http://archives.cnn.com... (2)Stupid White Men, By Michael Moore.
Spanking

My first point would be the way you made it sound like the only way to strengthen a child is by spanking. Spanking doesn't make you strengthen it is just an element of fear. Now fear is a concept of parenting I can agree with, but there is other ways to obtain said aspect. I simply don't see as to how resulting to spanking is the only or best option. Maybe in a quick and difficult situation, but if you have time to think of a complicated way to put the fear of god into your child chances are the mistake they made will not be made again.
Spanking

I agree with everything you just said. However, even if the parenting system today wasn't just filled with threats there would still be tons of issues because they don't spank. The following things I'm going to say may not apply to all kids. I do believe if you can find another method first you should, but sometimes this is the most effective. You said parents are being too much of a friend. I completely concur. After my first spanking I went upstairs to my room, but before I got there I heard my dad start crying. At the time I though he just hurt his hand (even though he didn't hit me that hard it felt like it), and I shrugged it off thinking it was just instant karma. By now my dad has admitted to me that he hated hitting his kid, and even though it was lightly on the butt it was emotionally difficult for him to do. However, after that occurrence I never did it again because I can deal with losing privileges, but I would hate to be sore. This is just one example where my family stepped over being a "friend" and thought about what is best for me, and what will get to to me effectively without me having permanent scorn towards them. I have the best parents. Where other adults saw fragility they saw strength. They knew I could handle getting spanked because that's how they raised me. In a loving household held up by firm rules where some punishments hurt. Don't raise your kid to think that when he is disrespectful,hits,lies, or is just mean that he is going to get his toys taken, or my favorite "put in the corner". Because if he takes that attitude to school a kid is going to beat the crap out of him. I'm not saying I owe everything to spanking. My parents did a lot to raise me, and spanking barely ever occurred. However, I knew if I rolled my eyes at them, put my hands on them, or any of this other nonsense I see everyday. They wouldn't hesitate to make it occur again.
Spanking

I see what you're trying to say, but it isn't that the children were more behaved because of spanking they were more behaved because they got disciplined. The issue lies more with the parenting system of today. It isn't that they need to spank their kids, but they need to punish them. Parents today aren't doing that at all. They threaten mostly. If for once instead of just punishment, a parent actually went through and enforced the rule it'd be different. As for respect, respect isn't learned through spanking. Respect is taught by the parent. That's another aspect lacking in parenting. Frankly, there is a bigger issue at hand. Parents are being too much of a friend. Also technology affects children graciously. They don't know anything beyond technology, so thats all they know and does it teach them good qualities? Not usually. Most of the dumb ideas that get kids in trouble come from the internet. Honestly if the parents would take their kids outside and show them what a tree is, they may not have so many problems.
Spanking

I agree things have changed, but sadly effective methods of punishment have not changed with them. In the days when spanking was a popular form of discipline not only in homes but in schools( I do not believe discipline should leave the hands of the parents this is just a reference) children were much more well-behaved. Crime rates were down, kids were more respectful, times were all around better in this aspect. I have said many times my mother spanks me, and no one thought twice. Granted it was probably my word choice that did it. Using "spanked" instead of "hit". Anyway, even if services were called your child would have no bruises or welts and there would be nothing for them to see. Besides, if your child feels they need to get away from you by calling child services, or by drawing negative attention towards the family it probably stems from something other than the discipline you have been giving him/her since birth.
Spanking

Although spanking was a very modern and common method of punishment times have changed. Children have changed. If a child goes to school and says the words, "My daddy/mommy hit me," children services are going to get involved. Some children will do so in spite. Other methods of punishment are available and have been found to work. I don't see as to why if there is other, less violent solutions we need spanking. You don't need to hit your child to teach them what they did was wrong.