BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This gives people false hope

Doctors are trained in the presentation of news to their patients. This includes the delivery of bad news, and the dispelling of media-myths. Patients with terminal illnesses are often well-informed about their disease, and (in particular those with chronic conditions) often gain a good understanding of the possibilities of future treatments. The risk that they may all get carried away on a wave of false hope is, consequently, minimal. Patients in this circumstance are more than capable of reaching, in conjunction with their physician, an informed decision regarding experimental drugs, and make a choice accordingly. The moderate risk of someone making an error in no way outweighs the chance of giving someone some more time with their family. Countries that already allow access to treatments that have not completed trials do not just allow the doctor to simply proscribe the drug as with any other. Rather the doctor will need to apply for access to the drug.1 In addition the drugs company will also have to give its approval.2 As a result it is unlikely that the patient will consider this the same way as they do normal drugs. 1 ‘Special Access Programme – Drugs’, Health Canada, 15 August 2005, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/acces/drugs-drogues/sapfs_pasfd_2002-eng.php 2 ‘Compassionate Use of Unapproved Investigational Product’, Pfizer, http://www.pfizer.com/research/research_clinical_trials/compassionate_use_policy.jsp
This reduces the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to complete the testing process

There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen. For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.
This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine

Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.
Freedom of Choice

We live in a free society, and accept that people have the right to do as they please; including exposing themselves to risk, as long as in so doing they do not harm others (Mill’s harm principle).1 To deny people the right to choose to take drugs that are still undergoing testing that, whilst they are risky, may save their lives, is a violation of this principle: in choosing to expose themselves to that risk, no-one else is harmed and indeed in the long run others may be saved as a result of the tests. Further, with the assistance of medical professionals and other support, the decision to take this risk can easily be well-informed and consensual. 1 Wilson, Fred, "John Stuart Mill", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/mill/
It is cruel to deny people the last hope

At a point when all ordinary medical avenues have been expended, and the outcome appears bleak, new treatments still undergoing trials can be seen as the last hope. People are often aware of the existence of currently experimental drugs, they are likely to research into possible cures, and indeed there may have been attempts by their doctor to get the patient onto the trial. However, not everyone who could benefit from treatment is accepted onto a clinical trial: some trials, at some stages, restrict their recruitment to, for example, patients with no complicating factors or other illnesses. It is unethical and cruel to make people live out their last days knowing that there was something that could have helped, but to which access was restricted through no fault of their own: thus, you should allow anyone with a terminal illness access to such treatments.
Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage

The fact that 50% of all divorcees (National Office for Statistics 1999) go on to remarry does not, as the opposition claims, show that marriage is a meaningful and relevant institution but quite the opposite. What this means is that a huge number of people vow to spend the rest of their life with another person, forsaking all others until death do them part, on multiple occasions. This does not show that society still has faith in marriage, it shows that society no longer respects the institution of marriage.
Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship

The main objective of marriage is often said to be bringing up children in a stable environment. However in 2010 in the UK there were 119589 divorces; 11.1 per 1000 married population. Furthermore in the same year, the median duration of a marriage remained at a low level of 11.4 years.(Rogers, 2011) This clearly does not fulfill the initial basic aim of marriage as so many marriages end In divorce with the resulting splits affecting the children. In fact, a much more stable environment can be provided by a better relationship, even without matrimonial vows (Cherlin 2009). This relationship should not have to be through marriage; rather it would simply be a partnership in the way that many couples already live today.
Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage

With pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics) Since the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.
Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children

As explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children. The existence of marriage is essentially saying that same-sex couples and single parents are less able of raising children than heterosexual couples. Marriage, therefore, can be seen to promote outdated ideals that our society no longer holds and, as such, is itself an outdated institution.
Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage

50% of all divorcees in the UK go on to remarry. (National Office for Statistics 1999) This shows that, although their own marriage failed, they retain faith in the institution of marriage. The fact that, even when marriage has failed to work for them once, many people wish to give it another go shows that it is still meaningful to society. If an institution is so meaningful and relevant to modern society in this way, it cannot possibly be outdated.
Marriage is an important institution to religious people

Nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated.
Unreasonable commitment to expect of people

This argument only works under the assumption that we live in a society where divorce does not exist. If a person enters into a marriage without full awareness of what they have committed to and later need to get out of that marriage, they are free to. Being able to leave a marriage, though, does not make marriage a meaningless charade, as the proposition claims. It is still more difficult to leave a marriage than it is to leave a non-marital committed relationship and so it makes a big difference.
Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway. The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.
Marriage promotes a better way to raise children

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child. The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)
Unreasonable commitment to expect of people

The average age, in the UK, to get married is approximately 30 years old. (Office for National Statistics 1999) Life expectancy in the UK is approximately 80 years. (Office for National Statistics 1999) This means the average marriage expects people to commit to maintain a certain way of life for a period that is longer than they have actually been alive. This goes hand in hand with the rise of social acceptability of people having more than one life partner in their life to show that either marriage is an unreasonable expectation of someone or a meaningless charade that is not actually expected to be maintained.(Cherlin 2009)
Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion

The proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society.
Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.

Marriage represents a commitment and a bond that is, although not unbreakable, difficult to break. This may not be appropriate for couples who wish to have a more casual relationship, however, it offers a more stable and official relationship, which is far preferable to a more transient relationship when it comes to raising a child. (Waite 2000)
Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship

Marriage has relevance to modern society in not only an emotional, religious and practical sense but also in a legal sense. According to Sir Mark Potter in English Law marriage is regarded as an "age-old institution" that is "by longstanding definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. It gives many rights in areas like property rights and pension benefits.(Travis, 2011) A marital bond gives important rights to both parties in cases of events such as severe injury, bereavement or even divorce. An institution cannot be outdated if it retains legal importance in modern society.
Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship

Once a couple get married, they have made an official and legal commitment, which makes it more difficult for them to split up. This means that, irrespective of divorce statistics, adding marriage to a relationship will only serve to make it more stable and give the children of that relationship more security. Therefore marriage still gives benefits in modern society and is not outdated. (Waite 2000)
Marriage promotes a better way to raise children

Marriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated.
Statehood would prevent Puerto Rican independence

The US has treated Puerto Rico as little more than a colony for 100 years, and this has seeped into the Puerto Rican mentality in harmful ways. According to educational scientists Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, in their 1973 work The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook, the belief that Puerto Rico cannot survive on its own results from teachings since grade school. “Puerto Ricans here and in Puerto Rico are taught three things: Puerto Rico is small and the US is big, Puerto Rico is poor and the US is rich, Puerto Rico is weak and the US is strong.”[1] Popular author and Puerto Rican culture enthusiast Jesús Omar Rivera similarly argues that “in Puerto Rico, ever since you are a child, you are told that you live on a tiny island that has no natural resources, nothing. This is what they teach you in school, on TV, the media, and it’s always negative.” He argues says this perception is a by-product of the island’s political dependence on the U.S.. “There is this colonized mentality that everything from abroad is better.”[2] None of this would change under statehood, and arguably would get even worse as Puerto Rican culture, still perceived as 'inferior' to all things American, would decline even further. Puerto Rican nationalist Juan Mari Brás has argued “Only through a great unified movement looking beyond political and ideological differences, can the prevalent fears of hunger and persecution be overcome for the eventual liberation of Puerto Rico, breaking through domination by the greatest imperialist power of our age”.[3] Attaining Puerto Rican independence us the only great cause which can unite all Puerto Rican people and allow them to break out of this colonized mentality and reclaim their dignity as a people and as a nation. To enter into US statehood would simply be to accept this colonized mentality and the denigration of all things Puerto Rican, to the advantage of the all-consuming American culture. [1] Cordasco, Francesco and Bucchioni, Eugene. “The Puerto Rican Experience: a Sociological Sourcebook”. 1973. Littlefield, Adams, & Co.. [2] Martorell, Carlos Rodríguez. “Have a Puerto Rican question? Ask El Boricuazo”. NYDailyNews. 3 June 2008. [3] Peacehost.net. “Juan Mari Brás”.
Puerto Ricans deserve full political rights and citizenship

Regardless of what Puerto Ricans may or may not “deserve”, the fact is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood many times now, making their voices heard on this issue many times since the late 1960's. The island has repeatedly voted to remain a commonwealth when votes were taken in 1967, 1993, and 1998.[1] If Puerto Ricans actually like their current status enough to vote for it when presented with the alternatives of statehood or independence, where is the injustice in that status continuing? [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.
Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood

As an American state, Puerto Ricans would pay federal income taxes, which most currently do not. Some businesses would also lose tax breaks they currently enjoy.[1] This would harm not only the wealth of individual Puerto Ricans but also harm the country's economic standing, as it would become less appealing as an investment destination without these tax breaks and with the presence of federal income taxes. There is no guarantee that the extremely high rates of economic growth the pro-statehood optimists forecast will actually come about to balance out these increased costs for all Puerto Ricans. Historically statehood could have been disastrous for Puerto Rico's economy: the post-World War Two economic growth in Puerto Rico was the result of special treatment via exemption from Federal corporate taxes resulting from Puerto Rico' special non-state status.[2] [1] Constitutional Rights Foundation. “BRIA 17 4 c Puerto Rico: Commonwealth, Statehood, or Independence?”. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Fall 2001 (17:4). [2] Leibowitz, Arnold H. “Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations”. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1989.
English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood

The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience, including the examples listed. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes.[1] [1] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.
The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity

The arguments regarding the loss of Puerto Rican culture under statehood do not stand up because Puerto Rican identity is strong and will continue to be so.  Puerto Rico has been exposed to U.S. mainland cultures for over 100 years, and Puerto Rican culture and heritage has thrived and grown. Puerto Ricans and mainland citizens have moved freely between the island and the mainland with no resulting cultural dilution or weakening of Puerto Rican's strong identity, even with the large migrations of the 1930's, the 1950's and since then. There is no reason to believe this would change under statehood. Puerto Rico has adopted and adapted aspects of U.S. culture, just as we have incorporated much of Puerto Rican culture when exposed to it. Puerto Ricans, while citizens, in much the same way as Texans and others view themselves, are still Puerto Ricans despite the more than 100 years of the deep and strong relationship with the mainland United States.[1] [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.
Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US

Much of this argumentation assumes that the Puerto Rican economy will not expand with statehood, which there are many good reasons to believe would occur. Look at what happened to the last two states admitted to the Union, Hawaii and Alaska. Both economies grew substantially after being admitted to the Union and became net contributors to the U.S. Treasury. Puerto Rico would receive equal treatment in both taxes and benefits, the same as the other states. Benefits to the island under the current system are limited by Congress. Those limitations would be removed. At the same time, payments of federal taxes would be phased in, as provided by the enabling legislation. It has been estimated Puerto Rico as a state will contribute nearly $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury each year.[1] How is that possible? Through economic growth. With economic growth there are more jobs, fewer unemployed, and less of a public assistance burden. [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.
Statehood would prevent Puerto Rican independence

Firstly, Puerto Ricans have repeatedly rejected independence in referendums in 1967, 1993, and 1998, with the votes for independence always being fewer than those for statehood. But secondly, the reasons against Puerto Rican independence are myriad. If Puerto Rico were to vote for independence, it would be hugely costly. It is inconceivable that the U.S. would set Puerto Rico adrift without a large "transition package" and continued foreign aid of a large magnitude. This would be necessitated by the fact that Puerto Ricans are currently U.S. citizens, who would demand favourable treatment and help. Puerto Rico, as an island with 3.8 million people and no other significant natural resources, is not economically viable as a separate nation without significant external aid and free access to large markets like the US enjoys. With statehood, Puerto Rico can be economically viable and a contributor to the United States' wealth, but with independence it would be impoverished and isolated.[1] Moreover, the American 'melting pot' has always been about the fusion of different cultures together, not their disappearance, and this will be the same for Puerto Rican identity. [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.