BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning alcohol is a quick fix to a wider societal problem.

Laws change attitudes. Many times laws are the first step towards more approval of a certain new societal value and even lead the step to a quicker mentality change. This was seen with the legalizing of gay marriages in many countries, among them also in some states in the US. In 2010 the approval among US citizens reached more than half of the population, which is a drastic improve from the past.[1] In the beginning there was very little approval of the policy and same-sex marriages in general, an open discussion about the law, the first actual practical implications of the law and consequences have over time gained more acceptances in most Western countries towards gay marriage. The same principle will apply to an alcohol ban. While in the beginning there will probably be a lot of protest, there will probably also be a change of mentality later on.     [1] Gallup, Americans acceptance of gay relations crosses 50 % http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx, accessed 08/13/2011
Banning alcohol harms the economy.

It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers. Also it is true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.
Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into. You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.
The policy is counter productive

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable. It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection. The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them. Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.
Collective punishment is unjust

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.
Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent

This measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods. Firstly, it incentivises national athletic and sporting bodies to diligently check the background of coaches before their employment and continue to investigate them throughout the year. It is now in the interest of every single member of national sporting bodies and teams to ensure abuse doesn’t continue. In most it is currently in your interest to keep quiet, lest you risk disturbing the national programme or being ostracised by your federation. As a result coaches are far less likely to think these training methods will help them achieve success. Since it could see their athletes banned from the competition and lose their medals it makes using harsh training methods an immense risk to take. It would also mean they’re unlikely to ever get hired again if caught.
The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team

This ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight. According to Melanie Lang of Metropolitan University harsh and over intensive training “removes the element of fun that first attracts so many youngsters to sport. It can inhibit bone growth, cause physical and mental burnout and increase the potential for injury and dropout.”[1]  And worse the coercion can lead to injury and even death; American gymnast Christy Henrich became anorexic and as a result died weighing only 3st 5lb while Chinese gymnast Sang Lan was paralysed after being cajoled into attempting a vault.[2]  It’s more important to ensure all athletes can train in a safe environment free from physical and mental abuse, than it is to safeguard against the disappointment of professional athletes who want to compete. Given that there are major sporting events annually or bi-annually, usually, it’s not as if those forced to miss out can’t compete again soon. [1] Cassidy, Sarah, ‘Olympic swimming training ‘too hard on young athletes’, The Independent, 4 September 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/olympic-swimming-training-too-hard-on-young-athletes-918054.html [2] ‘Beijing Olympics: The Games are not child’s play’, The Telegraph, 16 August 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/2571096/Beijing-Olympics-The-Games-are-not-childs-play.html
Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches

Athletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse.[1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold.[2] Because of this, the IAFF has to make this decision for them. It also means that the chance of whistleblowing is low, since athletes cannot rationally consider whether the training methods are acceptable. So it has to set an incredibly punitive deterrent to make sure coaches aren’t tempted to use a training method they probably won’t be caught for. [1] Harris, Paul, ‘Secret world of a gymnast: starvation, sex and fear’, The Observer, 27 April 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/apr/27/athletics.usa [2] ‘Historical Timeline History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports’, ProCon.org, 28 February 2012, http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002366
The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.

Just as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’,[1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports. These athletes only exist in a professional capacity because bodies created the positions for the athletes to exist. If the world wants to pay people to perform and compete for them, then once that offer is made they have a moral duty to ensure that work is safe, since they are culpable in creating that work. Moreover, we give the IAAF power in the promise that by giving up localised power of judgement over sport, they can better protect athletes and creating a fairer sporting environment. Abusive training methods are a huge failure on the part of the IAAF and as such they must use the most powerful disincentive possible to them. [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF, http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42039.pdf
Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive.

Consider that athletes already subject themselves to the kinds of environments that most people actively avoid, and would probably be considered ‘harsh’ by the average person. These routinely involve long days, week after week, often planned out years in advance, practicing special diets and routines[1] and in some countries this may mean being isolated from home and family for years at a time. Athletes consent to having very harsh training in order to reach the prize, they’re used to putting themselves in extreme discomfort to achieve their goal. To the average person these things may seem abusive but an athlete considers these physical and mental demands differently. Communist teams used these kinds of training methods frequently and achieved lots of Olympic success,[2] why can’t an athlete choose to emulate these methods in the pursuit of their professional and personal dreams? [1] Dusen, Allison Van, ‘How To Train Like An Olympian’, Forbes, 8 July 2008, http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/08/training-perfect-athlete-olympics08-forbeslife-cx_avd_0708health.html [2] ‘Olympics: planned economies and the need to succeed’, euronews, 20 July 2012, http://prod-euronews.euronews.net/2012/07/20/planned-economies-obsessed-by-the-need-to-succeed/
The policy is counter productive

If your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen. The athletes being abused won’t want to report their coaches as the abuse is happening, because that means they and their teammates all lose their chance at and competing in the biggest sporting stages which in turn is likely to reduce their chances of ever achieving glory or getting a big payday from sponsorship. It is already the case that sometimes whistleblowers suffer for calling time. In India Dr Sajib Nandi was first removed from his position as a medical officer and then beaten up as a result of whistleblowing about doping.[1] This policy simply makes the stakes and the risks of whistleblowing much higher. At least now after they’ve been abused athletes come out and report abuse. Why would an athlete do this under this policy? It damages their stock as they become the one responsible for shaming sport in their country. Also, they’re likely to personally know and have training with people still on national programmes, so they’re not going to want to ruin their friends chances of earning more and competing for the top prizes. [1] NDTV Correspondent, ‘Dope mess: Whistleblower doctor attacked, Sports Minister assures a meeting’, NDTV Sports, 13 July 2011, http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/athletics/item/175835-dope-mess-whistleblower-doctor-attacked-sports-minister-assures-a-meeting
Collective punishment is unjust

Under this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment. Punishments should fit the crime and this means punishing those who are responsible not innocents. It is right that the punishment should be harsh as it needs to deter coaches but this deterrent should be through steep penalties for the coach not for others.
Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent

This isn’t necessarily true. Consider that currently coaches already are already disincentivised by the use of these training methods by the threat of losing their job. For example in South Korea fourteen Ice Skating coaches resigned after allegations of beatings.[1] Yet these practices continue. Deterrents rarely work because people don’t think they’ll be caught, and focus on the short term benefit of what they are doing. For example, even if you explain to someone that smoking kills, they may still take a cigarette because they assume they won’t be the one that gets cancer and so the short term benefit can be taken guilt free. The kind of coaches who already think like this and risk their job are unlikely to change as a result of this proposal. In this case, coaches are unlikely to think they’ll ever get caught, even if people like them are caught and punished, so they’ll think it is pointless to abandon the training methods they think will guarantee them success. [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘Breaking the Ice’, Time Magazine, 15 November 2004, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,782168,00.html
The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often. So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career. Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.
The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.

First this is not all the responsibility of the IAAF to police; the same guidelines state “Athletes must be instructed in health and safety practices and must bear a large degree of responsibility for their own welfare”.[1] The IAAF has already passed laws about what constitutes ‘proper training methods’.[2] The IAAF has therefore done what it needs to do to protect athletes. This duty of responsibility does not extend to a right to impose collective punishment. Most people wouldn’t argue with the fact that we should try to reduce the amount of harsh training methods being used, where we can. The debate is about how appropriate and effective this punishment is. This policy may lead to less whistleblowing, while simultaneously punishing lots of athletes unfairly. So no matter how high the IAAF’s moral burden is, this policy should not be enacted. [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF, http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42039.pdf [2] ‘Principles of Training’, International Association of Athletics Federations, http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42038.pdf
Pornography liberates women

Pornography is massively produced and distributed: this provides women with a vast platform through which to define their sexual identity. This has been a great tool in the past: in the 1920’s America, the flapper became a great role model for women by promoting revolutionary values of a strong, sexual woman: she danced wildly in jazz clubs, was openly lesbian, and sexually active. This image spread throughout the country thanks to the boom of the film industry in the Roaring Twenties (Rosenberg).[1] Now pornography plays, or at least can play, this same role. Pornography breaks the taboo of sexuality for women, and promoting the continuation of taboos is a label and a stereotype which the feminist movement must oppose. Instead, it should use pornography to spread its values. There is nothing intrinsic about pornography that makes it anti-women. There is female-friendly pornography, and in fact there are Feminist Porn Awards granted every year since 2006 (Techmedia Network).[2] There is also homosexual porn and porn that presents women as dominant: this can empower women and break current stereotypes, not only that women are not sexual, but that women in general cannot be powerful in society. The feminist movement should seek to promote this flow of ideas of what gender can be and allow women to influence the way their sexuality is perceived by men. [1] Rosenberg, Jennifer. Flappers in the Roaring Twenties. About.com, http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet.pornography.statistics.html [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award. http://internet-filter-reliew.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html
Attempting to ban it would only cause further problems

There is no guarantee that a ban on pornography would improve gender stereotypes: in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Pornography is a flourishing industry with incredibly high demand, and much like with prohibition in the past, it is naïve to believe a ban can make a difference. It is actually even harder with pornography, because of the ease through which it can be distributed through the net. Rather, a ban would expand the black market with all the problems that come with it today: child and non-consensual pornography, violence, unhealthy conditions, and a general lack of regulations. Furthermore, the extent that a ban could ever limit pornography, this would lead to further problems. On one hand, the feminist movement sends a worrying message that sex is harmful to women, and by extension that sex is for the benefit of men. Restoring a taboo on sexuality actively confines women to being dominated in bed, and in society in general. Secondly, if pornography is limited, the vessels through which men can satisfy their sexual urges are also restricted. This can lead, at best, to greater sexual harassment, greater pressure on women to provide sexual services, and to more infidelity. At worst, and most probably, it leads to higher levels of rape.
The feminist movement cannot afford to alienate itself from society

The term ‘feminism’ is often associated with men-hating and the radical view that women are superior to men as opposed to gender equality. This happens because extreme feminists who uphold such opinions are consistently given greater media coverage by virtue of having the loudest voices and creating headlines that sell. As a result, the feminist movement is currently lacking the support it deserves and even those who take feminist positions often don’t want to call themselves feminists. (Scharff)[1] It would be a bad move for it to further radicalise itself and attempt to ban something as present in society as pornography. It will never work, and it will merely make women and men more reluctant to espouse feminist ideologies for fear of being associated with a ‘hate group’. [1] Scharff, Christina, “Myths of man-hating feminists make feminism unpopular”, Economic & Social Research Council, 7 March 2013, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/press-releases/25291/myths-of-man-hating-feminists-make-feminism-unpopular.aspx
The feminist movement should not allow women to sell themselves

What is the difference between working as a pornographic artist and working as a street sweeper, or someone who unblocks the drains? Neither of those is an ideal job, and will rarely be a youth’s first career option. Both involve the use of my body for a sometimes unpleasant task. Yet one of them is considered dehumanising, and the other a valuable service to society. The fact is there is little difference between pornography and any other job. The comparison to prostitution is invalid: the key problem faced by prostitutes is the lack of security, since it is set in contexts that make them particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse. In pornography, health and security risks such as STDs are addressed in many countries, and can be done so more: in California, for instance, porn actors are required to wear condoms on set. These problems can be tackled in the same way as is the failure to comply with regulations in any other industry. Non-consensual sex, violence, extreme pornography, and child pornography, are all illegal: the problems with pornography must go beyond these (Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images).[1] [1] “Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images.” Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. 2008. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc
Porn is inherently dehumanising

Pornography does not objectify people, for they are portrayed as acting. Objects do not act, subjects do. Telling people what they cannot do is a greater loss of identity than any way by which they may be portrayed by pornography, for only the latter can be challenged. Sex is not negative towards women, repression is, sex is liberating not dehumanizing! The only thing that is dehumanizing is the belief that natural impulses as sex should have negative moral conotation, including the expression of it(in this case porn).
Pornography fuels unreachable ideals

Women may indeed be harmed through these ideals. However, all forms of media, fashion posters,[1] and razors, all carry the same risk of people potentially hurting themselves with it. This is not grounds for a ban. Furthermore, placing the blame on pornography for this kind of attitudes is very problematic in that it removes responsibility from the real culprits in society, the men who treat women in this manner when they are not acting. [1] See the debatabase debate ‘This House would ban sexist advertising’
Pornography eroticises violence

We live in a society in which no judge will recognise “I saw it on the TV” as a valid excuse for a crime. We allow people to watch violent films believing they will be able to distinguish between pornography and reality. For cases such as Ted Bundy, clearly issues other than pornography must have been at play: there have to be pre-existing anti-women values and, in such extreme cases, mental instability. Furthermore, the link between pornography and violence is not intrinsic; it is nothing the feminist movement cannot change through greater influence and/or restrictions.