BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The rich are now also deterred

Another purpose of fines is to provide a deterrent. If fines are applied at one rate regardless of income, they must be low enough not to be un-payable for those who do not earn much money. Consequently, they are set so low that they fail to have a deterrent effect on the richest in society, who are easily able to afford to break the law. This is especially the case when you consider the sorts of crimes that are punishable by fines, e.g. illicit parking and littering. These crimes have an indirect harm, and thus it is easy for the rich to consider that once they have paid the fine they have paid for the damage done, even though in reality this is not the case.1 1 Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. ‘A Fine is a Price’. Journal of Legal Studies., vol. 29 pp1-17
Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions

Fines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1 Making fines proportionate to income would change that perception. People would then see the law being applied in such a way as to punish all, not just certain sections of society. This will improve perceptions of (and consequently, relations with) the justice and law enforcement systems. It is important that justice is seen to be done, as well as occurring (sometimes referred to as the Principle of Open Justice), for several reasons. First, we operate a system of government by consent: people’s opinions of the justice system are deemed an important check and balance on the power of the law-makers. Consequently, if they are seen to ‘abuse their power’ by imposing a law seen to be unfair, they have an obligation either to adequately explain and defend the law, or change it. Second, people’s perceptions of law enforcement in one area spill over into other areas: it is the same police force enforcing all aspects of the law, and so the differences in policy origin are obscured. Consequently, if people deem law-enforcement to be unfair in one regard, they are less likely to trust it in other circumstances. Third, it is important that the justice system is seen to be impartial, rather than favouring any particular group, because it is only under such circumstances that its designations of acts as ‘crimes’ can be seen as a true reflection of what you ought and ought not to do, rather than just what would be in the interests of a given group. 1 ‘Justice and The Poor’, National Council of Welfare, 10 September 2012, http://www.ncw.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=96&fid=4
NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer

In spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear Iran. As in the past, NATO provides an institutionalized dialogue between partners with shared interest: America has an easily accessible diplomatic forum through which it can garner an international coalition for its policies, and European member states can benefit from access to US military technology and know-how. That’s why throughout 2010 and 2011 NATO has successfully formulated a new ‘Strategic Concept’, a joint strategic vision shared by all members, as well as a policy to improve NATO’s involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction.[1] [1] NATO. Key NATO policy on stabilisation and reconstruction released to the public. 2011. NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010.
NATO provides the UN with an effective joint military capability

When in early 2011 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, calling upon countries and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect the citizens of Libya against its dictator Ghaddafi, NATO provided effective support through their ‘Operation Unified Protector’, through which it enforced the arms embargo against Ghaddafi and the no-fly zone over Libya. Moreover, the smooth cooperation between France, the UK and the US in their active campaign to provide air support for the rebels in Libya has probably been made easier by the previous cooperation these countries have had through NATO.
NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability

As of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called for the ending of hostilities but only when NATO and/or the UN became involved militarily, was peace effectively enforced. Consequently, in 2002 NATO and the EU agreed on the Berlin Plus Agreement, allowing the EU to use NATO assets, provided no NATO members vetoed it. Under this agreement, the EU has been able to hold their own peacekeeping missions in the Republic of Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia Herzegovina to oversee the Dayton Agreement (EUFOR Althea).[1] [1] NATO. NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership.
NATO allows burden-sharing and specialization amongst its members

For many members, maintaining a fully operational military that has all the required capabilities (air, sea and land plus required logistics) is impossible: they don’t have enough budget, manpower or political will to maintain a full military. NATO allows members to share their burdens and to specialise. Examples of this are NATO’s AWACS-aircraft (Airborne Warning & Control System) and NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability. Both are instances of NATO-allies pooling resources and sharing burdens.[1] [1] NATO. AWACS: NATO’s ‘eye in the sky’.
Continued existence of NATO makes the world less safe

Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these.[1] [1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010
NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia

NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’.[1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy.  [1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia.
NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation

NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I.
NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer

Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests? Without a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless.
NATO provides the UN with an effective joint military capability

NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO.[1] [1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011
NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability

The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows?[1] [1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship.
NATO allows burden-sharing and specialization amongst its members

NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of U.S. Defence Secretary, a “two-tiered alliance” between “those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership”. As long as Europe continues to take a free ride on the U.S., it will never be able to either shoulder its fair share of the burden, or operate independently outside of NATO.[1] [1] Gates, Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future. 2011
Continued existence of NATO makes the world less safe

Originally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic politicians in a classic case of ‘scope creep’. This has happened with U.S. President George Bush jr.’s push to let Ukraine and Georgia in as new members in his global campaign to spread democracy. This has only served to increase tensions with Russia (see next argument). Who is to say that something similar isn’t going to happen vis-à-vis China?[1] [1] Hamilton, Time to disband Nato now the Cold War is over? 2008
NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia

There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.”[1] [1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008
NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation

The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world.
Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.

The music is not the reason for the lack of respect for women; rather it is a much broader problem that cannot be prevented simply by targeting music. Within the part of that culture that is music the problem is not that music depicting violence toward women provides negative role models but rather that there are no positive role models to balance this. Banning music depicting violence towards women would not solve the problem as it still would not provide positive role models in order to replace the previous depiction. Therefore rather than putting energy into banning music depicting violence towards women, we should create a counter culture of strong, independent women who will not stand by domestic abuse or violence.
It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.

None of these arguments pose a significant problem. While setting criteria may be difficult and there will always be cases where it is a matter of interpretation this is not a reason not to create a strict and detailed set of criteria. There could be an appeals process to make sure that a song is not banned based purely on one individual's opinion. That a ban on recording and selling the music could be avoided through pirating or songs being passed down orally does not matter as if this was happening the ban would already have enough of an impact. The ban does not have to be totally comprehensive in order to have the desired effect of reducing violence towards women simply that it prevents many people listening to the music. The audience would be reduced to a tiny minority and those who remain would be aware of the lyrics as they would have to specifically seek out the music rather than simply being exposed to it with little thought of what it may contain. Finally there is unlikely to be a large forbidden fruit effect, some people may want to try it in order to find out what it is like. But unlike for example drugs there are direct substitutes that would be almost exactly the same but without the violent lyrics so there is little point in going to the extra effort to get illegal versions. improve this
To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures.

To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would not be met with claims that their ban merely encourages the view of children as victims (as an argument against the practise). Why is that any different in this case? improve this   We desire freedom of expression.
To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would

However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority. 1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008  improve this
The 'Slippery-Slope' Argument

No 'slippery slope' situation exists. It would be clear that the ban only applies to music that glorifies violence. This is not a justification that could be infinitely expanded to cover more and more music and art. It could not be considered a precedent to ban music with a political message as most political messages do not promote violence. Far from stifling creativity it is likely to stimulate it. Artists would need to find new styles of music and would attempt to find ways around the ban while still keeping their music as near to its previous style as possible. improve this
This type of music is degrading to everyone, not just women.

While music depicting violence towards women appears on the surface to only demean women, it can be offensive and degrading to a range of people. One popular culture reference to a situation like this comes from the British television show called The Office, in the episode 'Merger'1. In this episode the character David Brent tells a racist joke and while this did not offend the black character present, many other characters were still offended by this joke. People may be offended by the ideas behind the music, as it seems that people who glorify violence towards women in song appear to think that this violence is acceptable. Men could be offended by these ideas just as much as women might. As songs like this become 'mainstream' in some cultures, everybody in that culture becomes affected by it, and some men and women may feel degraded by this association. Finally some people may argue that the person who writes and/or sings lyric that depict violence towards women degrade themselves in this act. 1 DailyMotion. The Office (U.K.) - Explaining a Joke. Retrieved August 23, 2011. improve this
Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.

Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence. The Scottish Home Affairs correspondent Lucy Adams reported in 2005 the levels of domestic abuse committed by 16-18 year olds grew by around 70%. One of the reasons suggested for this dramatic raise is the culture of music that depicts and glorifies violence towards women[1] (heraldscotland.com). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reports that a study conducted in a variety of US states illustrated that music that depicted acts of violence 'led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguously aggressive words, increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive vs. nonaggressive words, [...]The violent songs increased feelings of hostility without provocation or threat'. Although they are quick to assure that it is NOT the music type that has this affect, it is simply the lyrics, as even humorous aggressive songs have this effect. They conclude with the idea that 'Repeated exposure to violent lyrics may contribute to the development of an aggressive personality' and thus lead to more aggressive behaviour. While currently there is little to no research specifically on the link between domestic violence and lyrics that depict abuse to women, the current information that we have on violence and music lyrics suggests we can expect a similar effect. Thus if we were to ban music depicting violence towards women, people could not be influenced by it and levels of violence would drop. [1] Adams, L. Why rap drives teenagers to domestic abuse; Songs blamed for 70-per cent increase in young victims. Herald Scotland 7 October 2005
It would be easy to apply restrictions on music.

We already give films, DVD's and games an age appropriate rating. In the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America is charged with the responsibility of providing ratings to consumers[1]. It would seem that it would be simple to stretch these criteria to a similar music body. Therefore people would only be subjected to violent lyrics when it is deemed they are old enough to hear or buy this material, and it would stop younger people from being exposed to this kind of music. This also means that no new state-run institution needs to be created; it would operate, like the MPAA, independently of government control. As such, claims that any form of music censorship would suffer from practical problems are short-sighted, we simply need to extend the medium that already exists. [1] Motion Picture Association of America