BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sexual development is a process of gradual discovery and cannot be effectively taught in a classroom

Having a one size fits all sex education system cannot effectively deal differences within classes. Sexual experience is a gradual process and cannot be meaningfully taught in the structured environment of the classroom. People must discover much about their own sexuality, through experimentation and self-exploration. By trying to impose a strict curriculum that explains sexual processes and practices along set guidelines, much of the opportunity for self-discovery is lost. Furthermore, when people are forced to conform to the set sex education program, they cannot move at their own pace. This is particularly harmful to people who are physically or emotionally less mature than their fellow students and who would be better served if they were allowed to pursue sexual knowledge at their own pace. When other students are involved in the classroom, there is necessarily a degree of peer pressure, which places a further strain on the later bloomers of the class to conform and experiment sexually before they are ready.[1]  Another example is the case of gay and gender dimorphic students who will be left isolated within the class, even singled out as different, in a way that may not be conducive toward the promotion of understanding and acceptance. Teachers cannot cater their lessons to every single student, and thus students with less conventional sexual preferences and identities are left without meaningful engagement in the classroom. [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998
The state has had no historical role in sex education to no ill effect, so should it develop one now.

Sexuality should not be within the purview of the state. The state maintains order and security and provides essential services. Sex education does not fall within its responsibility. Sexuality is for many people deeply personal and should be respected as such; young people should be allowed to explore their sexuality independently and with the guidance of family, not under the watching eye of the state.[1] Sex education programs reduce sexuality to biology and fail to adequately address the emotional elements of sexuality in a way that is not seen as a joke by often-immature students. Inevitably teachers’ personal opinions on sexuality will bleed into their teaching, as will that of the state officials that set the teaching standards for the subject. In this way there is always a normative judgment in sex education that will be seen as the state mandating certain sexual behaviour and practice. This fundamentally attacks the rights of individuals to develop their mode of sexual expression independent of the nanny state’s instruction and can irrevocably harm peoples’ sexual identity. [1] Lord, Condom Nation, 2009
A safe framework for understanding sexuality and sexual identity are essential to human existence

Sexual identity is confusing in any situation. It becomes even more confusing when one is exposed to sex education and the broad spectrum of sexual preference and practice before one is emotionally equipped to understand and appreciate it. Understanding one’s sexual identity is an exploration that must be pursued at one’s own pace, not at the rate mandated from the state or school. Children mature physically and emotionally at very different rates and mandatory sex education which offers the information and the emotional guidance at the same rate to everyone is not well tailored to the different development rates.[1] [1] Measor et al, Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000
Parents cannot be guaranteed to provide a suitable amount of sex education

Parents know their children better than anyone. They know what s/he is like, and in what environment s/he will grow up and often live. The state is not infallible and its decisions are not purely objective. When children are not adequately mature for sex education, parents must have the ability to make the decision on their behalf to withhold information that could be potentially damaging to their future development. As to homophobic or bigoted families, such views are considered to be socially acceptable insofar as people have the right to express such views. This does not, however, give parents license to abuse their children if they have alternative sexual preferences. Sex education is not necessary to ensure against abuse, that is the purview of law enforcement.
Even religious and conservative communities will benefit from mandatory sex education

Sex education does not benefit conservative communities as sex education is not simply a provider of information. Rather, it entails at best an acknowledgement that kids will have sex regardless of what they are told, and at worst a positive endorsement of sexual activity. It is a shameful abrogation of responsibility on the part of adults to essentially allow children to make bad decisions. Sex education encourages students to make a choice, meaning more will make the wrong one.[1] Teaching children about sex will necessarily make them more prone to experimentation, and will likely cause them to view their peers in school in a sexualized context, leading to less focus in the classroom on study, and more on sex. Conservative and religious households have every reason to fear such developments. [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998
Parents should have the final choice in sex education for their children

Parents do not always know best, particularly when it comes to sex education. Parents cannot be trusted to instruct children effectively in sex education because they themselves are often uneducated in the matter and have personal biases regarding the subject.[1] Often they will not understand the finer points of contraception and STDs, things that have each changed substantially in the past few decades, with things like the morning after pill becoming readily available in many countries, and diseases like Chlamydia much more prevalent in populations than they were in past generations.[2] Parents’ ignorance may thus misinform children to their detriment. The parent may not understand their child best preventing their children from ever developing a meaningful understanding of their sexuality. Such is the problem for gay children raised in homes that say being gay is sinful and unnatural.[3] With the only authority figure on the subject he knows telling him he is defective, a gay child is left to suffer and wallow in self-loathing. [1] Farrell, My mother said…, 1978. Frankham, Not under my roof, 1992. Measor et al, Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000. [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003 [3] Galliano, Sex Education Will Help Gay Children, 2009
Necessary to restore peace to the country

In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is a case in point as there have been more than 3,200 deaths in the 7 months after the coup against President Morsi.1 1'More than 3,200 Egyptians killed since coup', Middle East Monitor, 9 April 2014, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/10798-more-than-3200-egyptians-killed-since-coup
A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption

In a corrupt system the military is likely to be corrupt too. It will have its own sectional interest; getting as much funds for itself, or hyping possible threats. The military interest can often lead to far worse things than corruption – such as wars.1 In countries where the military is powerful it is likely to have large private interests too; in Egypt the military's holdings in the economy is estimated at anywhere from 5 to 60% of GDP though the military itself says its revenue from its private businesses is only 1% this is still a large interest.2 1Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991 2Hauslohner, Abigail, 'Egypt's 'Military Inc' expands its control of the economy', Guardian Weekly, 18 March 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/egypt-military-economy-power-elections
A neutral party

A military government may well be as riven by factionalism and division as the system which it replaces. The main interests of the military is often simply to maintain or increase the position of the military, this makes it likely there will be disagreement on other issues including over how quickly to return to democratic government. The military will often opt to return to barracks rather than have such splits become too deep “Military regimes thus contain the seeds of their own destruction” as there is almost bound to be a split into factions at some point when governing a country.1 1Geddes, Barbara, 'What do we know about democratization after twenty years?', Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.2, 1999, pp.115-144, http://ussc.edu.au/s/media/docs/other/Geddes1.pdf, p.131
The army is not the best institution to run a country

Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in power after an election, as with Sisi in Egypt, then they have come through the same test as a politician would have done.
Necessary to restore peace to the country

The clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democracies become unstable and violent with election campaigns particular flashpoints. The runup to the Thai elections in 2014 shortly before the coup left 10 dead and 600 injured1 with no sign of stability returning after the flawed elections General Prayuth Chan-ocha the head of the army said the coup was necessary “in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again.”2 When there violence creating violence it is the military's role to step in the prevent such instability. 1Wilkinson, Laura, 'Thailand elections: Violent clashes in Bangkok over disputed poll', The Independent, 2 February 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-elections-violent-clashes-in-bangkok-over-disputed-poll-9101656.html 2Hodal, Kate, 'Coup needed for Thailand 'to love and be at peace again' – army chief', The Guardian, 23 May 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/military-coup-thailand-peace-general-prayuth-chan-ocha
A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption

Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th.1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them. There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007.2 1Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013', http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/ 2Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf, p.5
A neutral party

Democracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Neither are willing to talk to the other, the competition has at times been violent and attempts to create neutral caretaker governments are scotched by one side or the other as occurred at the start of 2014.1 The 2007 coup resulted in the arrests of the leaders of both parties along with a major anti corruption drive.2 Unfortunately this did not prevent Bangladesh quickly falling into the same two party system with the same parties and leaders once civilian rule was restored. 1Budhwar, Kailash 'Bangladesh elections: The 'battling begums'', Al Jazeera, 4 January 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/01/bangladesh-elections-battling-begums-20141492730547677.html 2Voice of America, 'Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Arrested', voanews.com, 27 October 2009, http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2007-07-16-voa21-66720297/560572.html
Restoring democracy

A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it.1 1Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf, p.2
The response must be democratic

It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a
A coup makes it more difficult to trust in democracy

Military intervention damages trust in democracy even if the intent of the coup is to return to democratic rule as quickly as possible. There are two ways in which democracy is damaged. The first is that it undermines the point of majority rule if the military may just step in and take over if they don't like the result. Secondly if a democratic government is making a mess of ruling and the military steps in to clean things up then this may create an impression that they will do so again, so absolving politicians to clean up their own act. This may well be what happens in Thailand. Since the end of military rule in 1973 Thailand has now had seven coups; 1976, 77, 81, 86, 91, 2007 and 2014.1 In the 2007 and 2014 coups the government being overthrown was very popular; in 2005 Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party won 60.7% of the vote while in 2011 his sister won 48.41% if the military simply steps in after a few years of rule by a clearly elected majority then what is the point in voting? Already the middle class supporters of a coup argue that elections do not mean democracy to justify military intervention thus undermining the concept of democracy.2 1Winichakul, Thongchai, 'Toppling Democracy', Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.38, No.1, February 2008, pp.11-37, http://www.polsci.chula.ac.th/viengrat/thpolgovt/Thongchai%20-%20Toppling%20Democracy.pdf, p.15 2Ibid, p.27
The army is not the best institution to run a country

If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people. Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics. Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job.
Repressive governments rely on internet censorship to stifle dissent and entrench their power

The internet has become the ultimate platform for dissent within repressive regimes. It breaks the government monopoly on information and communication. As the technology governments have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology, CCTV, wiretaps, etc., the internet has become the only means of people to express their anger and to organize that is not entirely under state control. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator, Ben Ali, involved numerous internet tools to share information and coordinate their efforts.[1] Yet in many countries the internet too is highly censored, with security services investigating online posters and bringing them in for their version of justice, denying access to parts of the internet through state censors, and even ordering internet service providers to abide by strict censorship rules. Yahoo, for example, has bent the knee to China’s severe censorship laws in order to maintain its lucrative market in the country.[2] All of these factors have compounded to make internet dissent risky, and much harder for inquisitive minds to get access to information that is critical of their governments. By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. [1] Zuckerman, Ethan, ‘The First Twitter Revolution?’, Foreign Policy, 14 January 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/14/the_first_twitter_revolution [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/15/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes
Western democracies have a moral duty to aid the liberation of oppressed people where it can effectively do so

Western democracies make frequent declarations about the universality of certain rights, such as freedom of speech, or from arbitrary arrest, and that their system of government is the one that broadly speaking offers the most freedom for human development and respect for individuals. They make avowals in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and the need for reforms. Take for example Obama addressing the UN General assembly in 2012 where he said “we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values.”[1] By subverting internet censorship in these countries, Western countries take an action that is by and large not hugely costly to them while providing a major platform for the securing of the basic human rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression, they claim are so important. Some potential actions might include banning Western companies from aiding in the construction of surveillance networks, or preventing Western-owned internet service providers from kowtowing to repressive regimes’ censorship demands.[2] Few of these regimes would be able to build and maintain their own ISPs and all the equipment for monitoring and tracking they use.[3] Other actions might include providing software to dissidents that would shield their identities such as Tor.[4] All of these are fairly low cost endeavours. The West has an absolute duty to see these and other projects through so that their inaction ceases to be the tacit condolence of repression it currently is. [1] Barak Obama, ‘President Obama’s 2012 address to U.N. General Assembly (Full text)’, Washington Post, 25 September 2012, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-25/politics/35497281_1_libyan-people-benghazi-diplomatic-facilities/2 [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/15/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes [3] Elgin, Ben, and Silver, Vernon, ‘The Surveillance Market and Its Victims’, Bloomberg, 20 December 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/data-visualization/wired-for-repression/ [4] Tor, Anonymity Online, https://www.torproject.org/
This would make a powerful statement in favour of freedom of expression and against repression

Western governments pursuing this policy serve to make a clear and emphatic statement about free speech in an arena it has significant power to influence. By taking this action it makes it clear to repressive regimes that their efforts to stifle all dissent will not be tolerated by the international community.[1] The power of regimes to enact their agendas often comes from Western unwillingness to put their money where their mouth is. By funding internet freedom Western countries do this, and in a way that is unambiguously positive in its advocacy of freedom of speech, and that cannot be imputed with alternative agendas by critics.  Even repressive states usually claim officially to value freedom of speech, the People’s Republic of China for example in article 35 of its constitution states “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”[2] This separates this sort of action from sanctions, direct intervention, and virtually any other kind of international action that are so often condemned as being against a nations ‘sovereignty’. It is purely to enable the people on the ground to have more freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it favours. An example of this is Google’s choice to relocate its servers from mainland China to Hong Kong where there are fewer restrictions, which served as major totemic action in the fight against censorship in China.[3] The emphatic statement thus is an effective means of putting pressure on repressive regimes to reform their censorship policies to evade further international ridicule. [1] Clinton, Hillary Rodham, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom, Remarks’, U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178511.htm [2] Constitution of the People’s Republic of China’, HKHRM, http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/english/law/const03.html [3] Krazit, Tom, ‘Google moves Chinese search to Hong Kong’, Cnet, 22 March 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20000905-265.html