BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Killers must die to satisfy society

Those who have damaged society by robbing it of one of its members must pay for their crime. Adam Smith argued “We feel that resentment which we imagine he ought to feel, and which he would feel, if in his cold and lifeless body there remained any consciousness of what passes upon earth. His blood, we think, calls aloud for vengeance.”[1] It is not just the wronged individual who needs there to be retribution but society as a whole. Everyone in society is wronged by particularly heinous crimes as Blecker says of two horrific crimes “Those were my children, my wife that Coker raped and murdered, my sister Speck killed”.[2] [1] Smith, Adam, ‘The theory of Moral Sentiments”, MetaLibri Sixth Edition, 1790, http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf p.62 [2] Blecker, p.30
Hypocrisy

Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong.  There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in 1980.[1] In that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions? [1] Amnesty International, ‘Document – The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers’, accessed 3rd January 2014, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html
Too many innocents killed

Capital punishment in the US kills too many innocent people.  Over 143 people who were innocent were exonerated from death row since 1973[1]. One person executed is too many – it has already happened in the US, with Carlos DeLuna[2]. It is likely that many innocent people have been executed in the US – it is a price not worth paying.  [1] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Innocence list”, DPIC.org, 2013, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row [2] Pilkington, Ed, “The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death”, The Guardian, 15 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death
The death penalty is racist

Like the rest of the American criminal justice system, capital punishment in America is institutionally racist: black men make up 6% of the US population as a whole but 40% of those on Death Row[1]. In the US, African-Americans and White people are murdered in almost equal numbers, but 80% of those executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a white[2]. [1] Blecker, p.237 [2]Amnesty International, “United States of America: Death by Discrimination – the continuing role of race in capital cases”, Amnesty International, 2003,  http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/046/2003
Necessary for punitive justice

By keeping a person locked up for life, which may well be appropriate for the “worst of the worst”, they are incapacitated for life. It similarly satisfied any retributive instinct, providing a total punishment, a form of internal banishment and total civil death – if one considers retributive justice desirable. Moreover this is inconsistent. If we are inflicting an eye for an eye because they deserve it then why should the death penalty reserved for the worst of the worst? Should it not be exactly proportional – which would mean all murderers should face the death penalty.
Redressing the balance

Such a register would, presumably still allow reporting when there was a genuine public interest – just as is the case for any other member of the public[i]. Presumably in such a circumstance, judicial approval could be sought – a process considerably quicker and easier than grinding an apology out of a magazine or newspaper; let alone winning a libel case. Putting the burden on publications to demonstrate that something was news rather than gossip would be of huge benefit not only to celebrities themselves but to those long-suffering consumers of British news who, whilst hating it, have had to plough through this dross as it makes its way from the pages of magazines into the public consciousness[ii]. So what if celebrities have double-standards? So do most people, none of who would appreciate that fact being pointed out on the front pages of the media. [i] The Telegraph. Matthew Holehouse. “Leveson Inquiry: Judge suggests a ‘celebrity privacy registry’”. 18 January 2012. [ii] The Guardian. Sam Delaney. “Will the Leveson inquiry kill celebrity magazines?” 26 December 2011.
Making editor’s think twice

A paparazzo’s shot of a second or third rate celeb doing something stupid, or something perfectly sensible but just not in makeup – or clothes – makes for an easy page lead. Anything that makes editors pause and consider whether they have something that might actually pass for news might do a great deal to pull large chunks of the British media – along with the readers they claim to serve – out of the gutter. In recent decades anything with ‘celebrity’ associations has been considered news as a sought of kneejerk reaction by editors. Even in the ‘quality’ press there’s still plenty of coverage of vacuous, self-absorbed, talentless individuals who are famous, mostly, for being famous. The defence of many editors is that these individuals deliberately court the attention they receive, which is, no doubt, true. However, whether it’s a good idea to give it to them is something that ought to give editors pause for thought given the deforming impact it has on young people’s sense of ambition[i]. Anything that means that such a productive golden goose is just one signature away from being killed, might be enough to make them ask whether it is really worth it. Nobody is suggesting that this will transform the media overnight but readers moving away from publications that focussed exclusively on celebrity gossip to publications that, while containing some, also have much more news and analysis of real world events and issues certainly couldn’t hurt levels of social and political engagement. The best way to encourage engagement is through education, which the media can provide. [i] The Telegraph. Lucy Cockcroft. “Cult of Celebrity ‘is harming children”. 14 March 2008.
It simply won’t work in an internet age

Whatever one thinks about the morality of this idea – and Opposition believes it is an attack on free expression – the simple and compelling fact is that it won’t work. The super-injunctions[i] fiasco demonstrated that keeping information silent in an internet age is simply impossible when there is a keen public interest. Whether Prop likes it or not, the public is interested in celebrity news, requiring newspapers to ignore what is happening in the blogosphere is asking them not to do their job. It would mean that the only people on the planet who couldn’t tweet celebrity gossip would be those hired to do so. This is important because it’s effectively impossible to sue a blog or a twitter account so they can publish any old nonsense. The press by contrast are subject to the law and, as a result, rumours remain the stuff of fantasy until they appear in the media. Without that arbiter between truth and fantasy, a curious public might as well believe what some fantasist has posted on their website. [i] Useful background on super-injunctions as the history leading up to them is here on the BBC site.
It would allow for an entirely false image to be created

If celebrities were, in fact simply hard-working entertainment professionals who finished rehearsals and then returned to their private lives then the idea of protecting that privacy might make sense. The reality is that it just isn’t so. It is routine for celebrities to use their status to express opinions on political or social matters on which they have no expertise whatsoever – and expect the media to cover it. Whether it’s the modest but routine endorsing of political parties in the build-up to elections[i] to Paul McCartney on animal rights to Matt Damon on virtually everything – why are we listening to their opinions rather than, say, a professor of economics or ethics? Equally, they expect coverage – and to be taken seriously – when announcing that the latest movie, or book or album is a masterpiece despite the panning it’s receiving from the critics. It’s also questionable as to whether pop singer or movie star would count as quite the right career choice for someone looking for a quiet life[ii]. It would be interesting to see how many would sign-up to Leveson’s proposed list if it was a blanket ban on publicity. No coverage of charity events that happened to get a celeb along, no interviews with actors on economics or pop musicians on ethics. [i] The Independent. Matilda Battersby and Thomas Mendelsohn. A who’s who of celebrity political endorsements.” 4 May 2010. [ii] The Guardian. Owen Bowcott. “Media interest in celebrities’ lives is legitimate, European court rules.” 7 February 2012.
A right to privacy – even if you are famous

Article eight only applies to public bodies so, for the most part, the media are not affected. However, to tackle the more general point – celebrity, by its nature requires some surrender of privacy; presumably those who would sign such a register would still want the ‘good’ publicity but want approval over the ‘bad’ stuff. Once you start giving anyone copy approval over a supposedly free press, you might as shut it down. It has simply ceased to be free at that point.
Redressing the balance

It matters if celebrities have double standards when they present themselves as being whiter than white. Equally, as Prop points out, there are already laws on defamation, libel, slander, defamation, trespass and surveillance. It is difficult to see what the register would add to these. One of the points that Leveson has routinely ignored is that all of the issues that prompted the inquiry are already illegal; hence the arrest of the journalists and executives involved[i]. [i] BBCwebsite. Journalist arrested in computer hacking probe. 29 August 2012.
A right to privacy – even if you are famous

Just because somebody chooses to be an actor, singer or an entertainer of any kind does not mean that they lose their right to a private life. In the context of the UK (the Scope of the Leveson Enquiry) it’s worth mentioning that this right is guaranteed under both the Human Rights Act of 1998, which in turn is predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights[i]. The people who are having their private lives splayed over the tabloids and gossip magazines are not politicians or judges taking bribes, they are not police officers beating up suspects, they are not teachers offering grades in exchange for sexual favours or any other area of sensible journalistic investigation. They are people who happen to work in the entertainment industries and their lives are being interrupted for the sake of prurience and curiosity that has nothing to do with a meaningful news agenda. If, as some of those mentioned in the introduction suggest, the worst that happens as a result of such a register is that celebrity magazines vanish, then the proposition is quite relaxed about that. [i] Article 8 of the ECHR and the UK HRA (1998). Outlined here.
Property rights for cohabiting couples will undermine the institution of marriage

Marriage is no longer the only type of serious long-term relationship and the law should reflect this: the absence of property rights on separation for cohabiting couples sends a message to society that cohabitation is a less meaningful relationship than marriage. Marriage has strong religious connotations and was historically a vehicle for the oppression of women. It is consequently unsurprising that some couples may not wish to enter into the institution of marriage. These couples can still have long-term relationships which are just as stable as marriage. Legal rights would help to validate such relationships and recognise the reality of diverse family structures within society. Furthermore, the status quo can be seen to be coercive in that individuals, who may not want to get married, are forced to do so if they wish to have legal rights.
Legal supervision will discourage independent planning

It is unreasonable for the law to expect unmarried couples to plan for when they separate: people within relationships tend to be optimistic about the prospects of their relationships. They do not expect to split up, and most choose cohabitation to see if the relationship is going to work out at all. Making agreements about property at this stage can seem unromantic and unnecessary. USA Today writes: “For young couples who have never been married, cohabiting may seem like a hassle-free way of testing a relationship before tying the knot. And for those who already have been through a divorce, who have children or other significant assets, cohabiting may seem like a way to avoid costly legal entanglements if the relationship doesn't work out.”[1] [1] http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/dating/story/2011/04/When...
The creation of such a law would strengthen trends toward paternalist law making

Creating legal provisions for property sharing after the end of a cohabitating relationship in no way limits the autonomy of individuals. If anything, the status quo does that. It forces couples to either get married (which they may not want to do) or to sign a cohabitation agreement before the beginning of a relationship (which is a preposterous idea to most couples). By creating a legal way to handle disputes after the end of a cohabitating relationship, the state would offer a middle road between the extremes of marriage and signing an unromantic contract early on.
The status quo discourages interdependence

The status quo discourages interdependence: the absence of property rights under the status quo encourages unmarried couples to act as individuals, protecting their own financial interests, rather than supporting each other. In UK law, “their relationship with one another is not recognised as having any legal standing, and they have no special status in the eyes of the English legal system”[1] Individuals are usually more able to pursue their own ambitions when they have the support of another. For example, financial support and security makes it easier to take risks which may be economically beneficial, such as setting up a new business, or undergoing further education to improve employment prospects. [1] http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Family_Law/Cohabitation
The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society

Fairness requires that cohabiting couples share their property on separation: when couples have lived together for a long period (such as five years or more) they will have gained benefits at each other’s expense but also suffered disadvantages for the other’s benefit. If one partner gives up a career to raise children or support the other in their career, they are seriously disadvantaged upon separation. Where the other partner has gained as a result of this sacrifice, they should compensate the former, so that the two parties can move towards independence in equal positions. Parties may choose not to marry, but this should not have to cause such financial harm to one partner.
Property rights for cohabiting couples will undermine the institution of marriage

Property rights for unmarried couples undermine marriage as an institution, harming society. The societal shift away from marriage is harmful. Marriages tend to be more stable than cohabitation because of the greater level of commitment involved: the mutual support of a marriage is beneficial for individuals and can create a more secure environment for raising children. Because of the higher exit costs (divorce is difficult and time-consuming), married couples are more likely to resolve their problems than cohabiting couples who can walk away more easily. Giving legal rights to cohabiting couples endorses more diverse relationships, suggesting that marriage is less important. This is harmful as it is likely in the long term to further reduce the number of marriages, leading to fewer stable relationships.
Legal supervision will discourage independent planning

The law should encourage people to plan adequately: individual people are different and one size does not fit all. If the state plans how your property should be owned, this fails to provide for each individual’s specific lifestyle and circumstances. An increasing number of couples enter cohabitation contracts (where they agree how to split property if they separate) and this should be encouraged instead of automatic rights. That is why some countries (like the US) offer cohabitation agreements, which is s a written agreement that governs the rights and obligations of two people who are in a relationship and live together in a shared residence.[1] [1] http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/cohabitation-agreement/?ldcn=cohab
The creation of such a law would strengthen trends toward paternalist law making

When couples choose not to get married, perhaps because one party is not willing to do so, this does not indicate the same commitment to each other. Where there are considerable disparities in income or wealth couples may have no desire to divide their assets and the choice not to get married may reflect this. Those who desire financial protection can choose to marry but the state should not intervene when couples do not make this choice, beyond ensuring that provision is made for children. Such intervention undermines the autonomy of individuals within cohabiting couples because it suggests that they cannot make these decisions competently for themselves.
The current situation discourages altruistic in a relationship

The status quo discourages care for children and the elderly: a further consequence of the perceived need for independence is that individuals are less able to reduce their working hours in order to care for young children or elderly relatives, in case they suffer significantly as a result, for example if their relationship ends. Children who see more of their parents often develop stronger relationships with their parents which are valuable in later life when they need advice or support. In addition, studies show that it is beneficial for their emotional development. Elderly people, on the other hand, often feel particularly vulnerable and isolated and care from relatives plays an important role in maintaining their inclusion within society.
The status quo discourages interdependence

The absence of property rights does not prevent interdependence: the law does not prevent individuals supporting each other or taking risks. However, it requires that couples discuss such plans properly with each other and decide how they wish to structure their own relationships. Expecting all couples, regardless of their circumstances, to support each other financially is unrealistic. Furthermore, it is possible that at the margin some couples may not cohabit in order to avoid having to share their property. These couples will have even less support.
The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society

Property rights are not fair: it is up to individuals to protect themselves in the sphere of relationships. Married couples have entered into a state-endorsed relationship which provides advantages (both financially in terms of taxes and inheritance, and through recognition and validation). It is reasonable for the state to require something in return: namely, that the parties are treated fairly, should that marriage end. Moreover, married couples are forced to share their property because they have chosen to commit themselves to each other. When people get married they know what they are signing up to and can therefore be taken to consent.
A federal Europe will benefit the citizens of its member states

A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”.[1] A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences. [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’
A federal Europe will be a stronger international actor

A federal Europe will be better equipped to promote the interests of its citizens in the world, carrying more influence in the UN, WTO, IMF and other intergovernmental and treaty organisations than its individual states do now. Furthermore, Europe has a lot to contribute to the world in terms of its liberal traditions and political culture, providing both a partner and a necessary balance to the USA in global affairs. Once unified, Europe will become an (even more) important negotiating and trading partner – one of the biggest economies in the world. It will have a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined. It will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of global wealth. It presently gives more aid to poor countries than any other donor. Its currency, the euro, comes second only to the US dollar in international financial markets. France, Germany, Poland - these countries can hardly ever negotiate something with giants such as the US or China. Europe as one country stands a better chance of putting its message across effectively.
A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions

In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised.