BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People are justified in listening to violent music

We would like to clarify that our topic is banning music that glorifies excessive, unnecessary violence against women not merely “violent music”. The opposition seems to hold the sensationalised belief that everyone has a dangerous obsession with violence & death. They further stated things relating to religion and the fact that everyone is so scared of death that they have become obsessed with violence in their media. The opposition stated that “we need clear demonstration that violent music more than any other form of art, creates violence in society.” However as we previously mentioned, multiple researches have shown, eg in 2003 in Washington, proved that exposure to violent music directly affected the humans in a way that they became more aggressive. They have also stated that the most read newspaper articles are “usually about wars and murders and other acts of violence...” Firstly we would like to point out that these statements technically had nothing to do with violence against women, therefore their points can be deemed irrelevant. Secondly even if the opposition’s statement is valid they are not supported with any proof. Opposition also stated that “we also made monumental progress in terms of equal rights...” We believe that this statement is true, but in terms of some countries across the globe such as Canada and USA, whereas continents such as Africa & other third world countries do not have the benefit of such equal rights. Women of various ethnicities are being degraded to mere sex objects, most prominently Asians & Black women, in which society has responded in outrage. This isn’t enough as the degradation of women continues. It is for the purpose that there is so much glorifying of this violence within music, and it has clearly been shown to have connection with mental thoughts by those that listen to it, that we feel the need and the urgency for this music to be banned. Again, we are purely talking about music that glorifies VAW
Censoring Art Is Dangerous

We can not expect 'all people to be generally reasonable', as the opposition argues - this is unrealistic. For one, the majority of the audience listening to this contentious music are under 25 years old and as recent research a 2 institutes have shown 'intellectual maturity’ is not fully developed until the until age 25 [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-02-20-juvenile-deathpenalty_x.htm]] It is unreasonable to assert that this kind of content is not affecting the developing values of people, least of all our youth. Music is not legally rated, unlike almost all other visual and aural media, yet it is the most accessible and inexpensive medium and people, all over the world, can access music. Popular radio marketing has chart toppers being repeated over and over again taking on an almost chant-like quality; and as a song rises in popularity we are then subjected to it’s video clip version which in these days often pushes societies boundaries and aims to shock thus increasing the song's appeal despite its negative content. Is the opp telling us that it is OK to continue to support the connotative message 'that violence against women is ok'" despite the facts we have already supplied in relation to this matter? The content of such music cannot be equated with art. The opp states that music cannot be limited bcecause we all interpret it differently. I would like to point out that statements such as “I may have to blow your brains out, baby. Then you won't bother me no more” (Eric Clapton) or “I used to love her, But I had to kill her, ... She’s buried right in my backyard” (Guns and Roses) or “If she ever tries to fucking leave again, I'mma tie her to the bed, And set the house on fire” (Eminem) send a very clear message that is not dependent on the individual’s perception. Not only are these examples not alone, they are among a rising population of excessively violent lyrics which are most often directed at females.
A ban is necessary for progress in the status of women.

How exactly is this music stopping womens progress? Over the years women have acquired the right to vote, the right to equal work opportunities & pay all while this music has existed. Female enrollment in college is higher than that for men and we even almost had a female president in Hilary Clinton in the USA & Australia has a woman PM Julia Gillard.[1][2] The fact is that this music is for a small segment of the population that is misogynistic. Majority of the population either rejects their views or see them as harmless entertainment. Much in the same way many rap fans do not take the lyrics of their favorite artists seriously. Else, as the prop would have it, there would be absolute carnage on the streets as 50 Cent and Ja Rule fans would be mowing each other down in the streets. The props own reference refutes their point. "Others, like Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, maintain that "the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it."" The fact is that non of the scientific evidence is conclusive. Each side can point to studies that support its own conclusion. What we can deduce from logic however is that the ban is not needed as we have had significant progress with regards to womens rights while we allowed free speech. The prop has to show how exactly the ban will hasten this process. Props reliance on the idea that people are shallow minded and only use misogynistic music as their guidance to making lifestyle choices is really not helping their case. We are working on a more accurate portrayal of society and music as an influence. First and foremost the majority of music listeners are reasonable adults who know how to handle issues such as violence against women. Secondly, EVEN IF people are shallow minded, music albums glorifying VAW are so far less available compared to their more contemporary adversaries for it influen [1]-http://goo.gl/bWcF [2]-http://goo.
Real social change requires real action.

Majority of society already believes in womens rights. There is a minority who do not. In order for the prop argument to stand they need to show us why 1) Normal people are likely to consume this media and if they do, how & why their views on women are likely to change. 2) Why the bigots would change their minds simply because they cannot access this music. The ban will not change this because they listen to this music because they are bigots, not that they are bigots because they listen to the music. So the problem starts with the misogynistic attitudes of the person to begin with. This is more rational to believe based on simple economics. People are in the music business to make money. It is very expensive to produce and market records. So it makes sense to make records for a market that already exists rather than hoping to change society to like the music you produce. Simply put, suppliers supply what is demanded rather than consumers demanding anything that is supplied. So the problem the govt should be solving is changing societal attitudes. The west has already succeeded in doing this because we recognize that you cannot change the opinion of every signle individual and that some bigots will always exist. We can look at examples like EU countries that ban holocaust denial or glorifying Nazism. Despite these bans we still see the existence of Neo-Nazi & Facist groups. In fact they are more prevalent in countries that ban holocaust denial than in the US which allows it. You can never have a total eradication of bigotry.
The speed limit is a law and the law should be obeyed. You may believe you can drive safely above t...

Cameras are not sensitive to context. The speed limit is a guide to drives of the maximum safe speed, but circumstances vary, e.g. in the early morning with empty roads but good light the safe speed may be higher than the speed limit and a motorist exceeding a 50 mph limit by perhaps 5 mph poses no threat to the public and should not be penalised. At other times, for example in heavy rain, fog or when street lights have failed, the safe speed is much less than the set limit. Emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks may need to break the limit on occasions, yet are often caught by cameras. Promoting and enforcing one set speed in all circumstances is irresponsible as it will encourage drivers to ignore road conditions and so make the roads less safe.
Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...

Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.
Speed cameras produce additional benefits as improving technology allows them to be used for other p...

Speed cameras are a bad idea in their own right, but they present a wider assault on liberty if they can be used for other purposes. Allowing the government to track citizens' every move is a dangerous infringement on the right to privacy. Nor should we be confident in the technology, as recognition systems are very inaccurate and this will lead to may innocent citizens being harassed by the authorities.
Speeding causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time a driver has to react to changing co...

Speeding causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time a driver has to react to changing conditions and the actions of other road users. Excessive speed also makes it harder to keep a car physically under control. Speed cameras reduce the number of road accidents by penalising drivers who drive dangerously, creating a deterrent effect for all drivers. A penalty points system can also be effective in forcing repeat offenders off the road by removing their right to drive.
Speed may not be the only factor in causing road accidents, but it is a critical factor in how bad a...

Speed may not be the only factor in causing road accidents, but it is a critical factor in how bad accidents are. Even small changes in speed can be effective in preventing deaths and reducing injuries. Countries that have introduced speed cameras have all seen reductions in deaths and serious injuries on the roads - most recently in France, where just 100 speed cameras have reduced deaths on the road by 10% in just one year.
The speed limit is a law and the law should be obeyed. You may believe you can drive safely above t...

The speed limit is a law and the law should be obeyed. You may believe you can drive safely above the speed limit, but there are other road users too. In any case, who needs to speed? \ In the UK, cameras may only be installed on roads with at least four serious accidents in the past three years, and where at least 20% of drivers are breaking the speed limit. Modern systems can also cope with variable conditions, using electronic signals to indicate safe speeds for the conditions and enforcing these with camera technology. They can also exempt the emergency services, although there is no harm in requiring these groups to justify the use of high speeds on particular occasions as this will always carry a risk.\
Although individual cameras may occasionally suffer technical problems, the technology is thoroughly...

Although individual cameras may occasionally suffer technical problems, the technology is thoroughly tested and reliable. A margin for error is allowed with machines typically set only to record vehicles at least 10 or 20% over the speed limit. Appeal processes do exist where drivers feel their penalty is unjust, and although these could be improved in some countries, this is not an argument for scrapping cameras. It is noteworthy that insurance companies and motoring organisations such as the UK's RAC and AA tend to advise drivers against challenging the evidence of speed cameras, such is their belief in its accuracy.
Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...

Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing them to do more important things, such as solving crimes, maintaining a presence on urban streets, etc. Speed cameras pay for themselves through fines and can even provide financial support for other police work. Studies have found that much more money is saved for the state and society through prevented casualties than is gained in penalties or spent on the cameras. The public can be educated to appreciate this benefit, especially as systems which apply penalty points for speeding offences instead of or as well as fines are clearly not solely motivated by greed.
Speeding causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time a driver has to react to changing co...

Speed is very rarely the cause of accidents; other factors such as drink and drug driving, bad road conditions, inadequate signing, poor driving skills, distractions such as mobile phones, and aggressive driving all play a part. Tackling these other factors would therefore do more to reduce accidents than speed cameras. It is noticeable that road deaths fell rapidly in the 1980s, before speed cameras were introduced but when there was more focus upon other factors; the last decade has seen much less dramatic reductions.
Speed may not be the only factor in causing road accidents, but it is a critical factor in how bad a...

This might be true of suburban streets where the difference between 20 mph and 40 mph makes a huge difference to how likely a victim is to survive an accident, but it is not true of the faster main roads where almost all speed cameras are positioned. On these roads the speed limits are already high enough to make accidents deadly, even if the vehicles involved are keeping under the limit set.
The citizens shouldn't suffer because of what the government has signed them up for.

And neither do we have a decision over the extortionate taxes WE pay, so why give it away to others countries. How many £mil' did the africans pay for an unnecesary world cup stadium for the world cup ?, and as soon as the event is over start pleading for money for water aid again. With that money they wasted they could have sunk 100s of wells and desalination plants...Water problem alleviated. from the 60s WE(the taxpayer) have been providing condoms to these countries to avoid babies being born to the harsh environments, after all it is extremely cruel to bring a child into the world in those conditions. It made no difference. My wife and I used to decide when we could afford to have another child as many did, and increase our families as and when we could afford to do so. Unlike today bang them out and let somebody else pay for them. Sheer waste of money and childrens lives.
Dropping the debts will not help the population because of corruption

This is fairly evidently empirically false and logically flawed. On the contrary, cancelling debt removes the need to pay future money – money which is raised by politicians from taxes from the general population. Cancelling debt removes the demand for that money, so taxes need not be as high, benefiting the general populace. Humanitarian aid, on the other hand, is a transfer of money into the country, as such it can actively be stolen by those in the distribution network who are corrupt. Money that starts with the population and has to be taxed from them is evidently less vulnerable to theft that money that starts (on entering the countries) with the elites in the country’s distribution networks and may never reach the population in the first place.
The churches

This point isn't really relevant to whether third world debt should be dropped or not. I agree that religions should be using all their money to help people, but why not focus on corporations? They have billions and billions of pounds that lines the pockets of already rich businessmen and women- why not demand that they pay off world debt and get rid of poverty? So yes, the money is there to cancel out third world debt, but that doesn't resolve the question of whether we should or not and whether to allow future repayable loans.
While these countries are in debt, they are under foreign control

Money is not lent to third world countries unconditionally- it is lent under conditions such as the implementation of structural adjustment plans, forcing governments to accept privatisation of national industries such as water. This often results in a situation where the price of essential things such as water increases massively so the citizens can't afford to pay and end up living in worse poverty than before. A non-repayable loan, still with conditions relating to democracy etc (although the IMF and world bank have often lent money to military dictatorships, such as that of Argentina 1976-1983) would free third world countries from constraints such as privatisation and allow their economy to develop in a way that would benefit its citizens rather than foreign companies such as those selling water.
Anorexics are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not...

Anorexics are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a free choice because they are not rationally able to weigh up decisions and consequences. The patient is not “capable of forming unimpaired and rational judgements concerning the consequences” (British Medical Association 1992).
Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatm...

Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently request it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level.
Palliative care is defeatist and does not attempt to cure the problem. Doctors do not often have to...

Palliative care is defeatist and does not attempt to cure the problem. Doctors do not often have to deal with severe or chronic anorexia. Just because it is a very long treatment schedule that can be harrowing for a doctor, this not a reason to settle for palliative care. Better support structures ought to be put in place to enable the doctor to fulfil their obligation to the patient.
Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatm...

Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. They are even less likely to do so if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding.
Convenience

One of the things people care most about when shopping is convenience. Most people don’t enjoy spending endless hours shopping, whether in a store or online, and it is always nice to get these experiences over with as soon as possible. This is one of the main reasons that online shopping has become so popular, as it allows you to switch stores and products by clicking a button rather than traveling to a new store. For example, at a store like Marks & Spencer you can buy a whole Christmas list's worth of different products!Advantage: Online Shopping
Interact With Humans & Better Help From Representatives

Even when you are in doubt with a purchase offline, you will be able to speak with a physical representative to ask any questions. When purchasing online, you sometimes have the option to speak with a representative but often the information given isn’t what you are looking for. According to Psychology Today, sometimes body language makes communicating your needs much easier than speaking in person. Since speaking in person is easier and quicker, you will not have to sit on the phone with a representative or wait days for an email reply. In addition to representatives being more helpful, you will also get to interact with other shoppers and see other people. A lot of people enjoy seeing others out and about which makes their shopping experience better. Who knows if you will run into an old friend or meet a new interesting person that you have a great conversation with. According to a report done by Kenneth Dixon of Stanford University, internet use has lead to an increase in social isolation. If we are lead to believe that humans are social in nature, then online shopping can impose a major change in the way we live, potentially leading us to become unhappy and unfulfilled with life.
Discounts and offers

All you really have to do to find the cheapest deal online is type the item you're looking for into the search bar and find a number of great deals. Usually, you are presented with only the lowest prices first when you shop online. This can be great if you're just looking to save some money on a big ticket item. However, sometimes online retailers will catch you with shipping costs or require large purchases before they discount your shipping costs which don't really save you money and requires you to buy more than you were originally looking for. Offline shopping will sometimes have great savings as well if you're willing to search around for them. A lot of items with both online and offline shopping will be marked as clearance items at a lower cost because they just want to get rid of that item.
Supports Your Local Community

Instead of your dollar floating across the country to someone 2000 miles away, often when you spend locally, that dollar stays in your community, multiplying itself and serving other local businesses. According to several studies done by AMIBA (American Independent Business Alliance), 48% of every purchase you make at local independent businesses will recirculate locally instead of only 14% being recirculated at chain stores. Since many small businesses will serve each other and the community with events or other services, it will also enrich the lives of you and your neighbors. That means improved services, employee salaries, charities, leisurely activities, parks, food, and events all provided in your own community. However, that is only if you are making purchases at local non-chain stores and depends on how those local businesses distribute money within your community. Most likely those small businesses hire local workers and provide services to other people in the community before that money goes out. Even if you make purchases at chain stores that are local, around 14% of the profits will recirculate first.
See & Feel What You Get Before Purchasing

When you buy something offline, you are usually able to see the exact design and quality of the item before you buy it where as an online purchase will not always show the best-detailed presentation of an item. According to The Federal Trade Commission, online stores may use a number of deceptive tactics to sell their products which require you to read the fine print closely. Because of the way items are sold online, there may be additional terms to the purchase or fees that they do not show you until you check out. Some items may turn out to be refurbished, cheap remakes of a brand name, an older model or incorrect size of clothing. Since you are able to try the item on or see if it's authentic before purchasing at an offline store, you don't run into the problem of returning the item at your expense or taking up a lot of your time.