BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia provides free, open access to knowledge

Wikipedia exists to provide free, open and easy access to information and knowledge. Its goal is to ‘distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language, and to an astonishing degree (it) is succeeding’.[1] It already has over 3.5 million articles in English alone.[2] This is more than ten times those of Encyclopaedia Britannica, its nearest printed rival. Traditionally, reference works were very expensive, which meant previously that knowledge was restricted to the wealthy, or those with access to well-funded public libraries. Wikipedia liberates that knowledge and provides volumes of online information to anyone with access to a computer, or even a smartphone, and the internet. Its impact is only restrained by the reach of internet providers and the desire of people to learn. Users do not need to be able to afford particular print objects but can access contents of Wikipedia from any location with Internet connectivity. [1] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker [2] Asrianti, T. (2011, April 27). Writing culture on the web: Are we still better at talking? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Jakarta Post
Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for enquiries

Wikipedia pools information that previously was spread far and wide in cyberspace into one readily accessible location. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point.[1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource. [1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Wikipedia models, in an accessible form, the process of knowledge creation through writing.

hrough the process by which its articles are constructed, Wikipedia supports “notions of revision, collaboration, and authority” that many academics value and helps to make visible the knowledge-making process.[1] With its Discussion and History pages, Wikipedia illustrates the peer review process academic writing goes through as well as the iterative, recursive nature of public writing. Thus, it can disabuse students of the notion that good writing happens in isolation in one sitting.  Therefore, Wikipedia can be an excellent teaching tool.[2][3] [1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012. [2] Wilson, M. A. (2008, April 1). Professors should embrace Wikipedia. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Inside Higher Ed. [3] Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition 25(4) (2008) 432–448.
There are practical problems with banning abortion

Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1 Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions. 1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL
Women have a right to choose

Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.
Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy

Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children". 1 SECASA
There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy

There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1 1 PRO-Life Information
Most abortions are performed out of convenience

Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1 1 L.B Finner et al
Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation

Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.
A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder

It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." in the 1980 presidential debate.2 1 THE TELEGRAPH
There are practical problems with banning abortion

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle. Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here. As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.
Women have a right to choose

Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.
Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy

Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion. 1 L.B Finner et al
Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.
Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation

Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they: a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.
A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder

Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.
Exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke goes against their rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a list of rights to which the United Nations has declared that all human beings should be entitled) states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"1. More than 50 studies carried out worldwide have found that people are at an increased risk of lung cancer if they work or live with somebody who smokes2. Given these very serious health risks, it goes against people's human rights to be exposed to second-hand smoke when they have not chosen to breathe it in. To avoid this happening, smoking should be banned in public places, so that non-smokers can be sure that they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke. 1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', General Assembly of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 2 'Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking', World Health Organisation, Vol.83, 24 July 2002, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf
This ban would lower healthcare costs.

The health problems that smokers experience cost taxpayers (where healthcare is provided by the government) or the individual (for private healthcare) a lot of money. Decreasing the number of smokers – as a result of a reduction in both “social smokers” (those who smoke when out with friends) and “passive smokers” (those who do not smoke themselves but are exposed to the second-hand smoke of others) – will lead to a decrease in these healthcare costs. This has been reported – for example – in Arizona, where a study found that hospital admissions due to diagnoses for which there is evidence for a cause by smoking have decreased since the statewide smoking ban, and that costs have thus decreased[1]. [1] Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health. 101(3). March 2011.
This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether.

Not being able to smoke in public will make it more difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. For example, if they are no longer able to smoke in the pub, smokers would have to go outside – possibly in the rain or other uncomfortable weather – and be away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. So, a smoking ban would encourage smokers to smoke less frequently and maybe even give up. This can be seen in countries already with smoking bans. For example, a study in England found that in the nine months after the smoking ban was introduced, there was a 5.5% fall in the number of smokers in the country, compared to the much lower fall of 1.6 % in the nine months before the ban[1]. This can only be a good thing, since giving up smoking decreases the risk of death, even for those suffering from early stage lung cancer[2]. [1] Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008. [2] Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340.  21 January 2010.
This ban would be easy to introduce.

A ban in all public places would be no more difficult to introduce than existing bans preventing smoking in only some public places. As long as people are given plenty of notice of changes, as was done in airports in Saudi Arabia, and the rules are made clear and readily available1 there should be few difficulties in introducing this ban. 1 Smith, Louise. “Smoking in public places: the ban in force – Commons Library Standard Note.” Parliament. 20 May 2011. improve this
This ban would be difficult to enforce.

Given the popularity of smoking, a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places would be difficult to enforce, requiring constant vigilance by many police officers or security cameras. It has been reported that smoking bans are not being enforced in Yakima, Washington 1, Atlantic City2, Berlin 3and other places. In New York City, the major has said that the New York Police Department (NYPD) are too busy to enforce the ban on smoking in their parks and on their beaches, and that the job will be left to citizens4. 1. Guenthner, Hayley, 'Smoking Ban Difficult to Enforce in Yakima', KIMA TV, 1 April 2011, http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/119039579.html  2. Sajor, Stephanie, 'Smoking Ban Not Enforced at Atlantic City Casinos', ThirdAge.com, 25 April 2011, http://www.thirdage.com/news/smoking-ban-not-enforced-at-atlantic-city-casinos_04-25-2011  3. AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,563424,00.html  4. 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/nyc-smoking-ban_n_822144.html
Smokers have a right to enjoy themselves.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"1. So, smokers have the same rights as non-smokers and should not be targeted because of how they choose to live their lives. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" 1.If some people get their rest and leisure by smoking with friends in a pub, it seems that governments should make it possible, by at least having smoking areas in pubs, restaurants, etc. A ban on smoking in all public places would mean smokers could never enjoy themselves like they want to, at least not legally. There are many groups which feel that the rights of the smoker are being ignored, e.g. "Forest". 1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
This ban would put many pubs, clubs, etc. out of business.

If smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, they will not spend as much time in them, preferring to stay at home where they can smoke with their friends. This will put many pubs out of business. In fact, since the smoking ban was introduced in the UK, many pubs have closed and blamed their loss of business on the smoking ban1. The Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign estimates that the smoking ban in the UK is responsible for 20 pub closures a week2. This is an unfair consequence for the many pub-owners across the world. 1 'MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs', BBC News, 29 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13948624 2  'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs, http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/our_case improve this
Exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke goes against their rights.

It is very difficult to properly scientifically measure the risk for non-smokers of being exposed to second-hand smoke. To do a proper experiment, scientists would need to find a large group of people who had never been exposed to cigarette smoke before, split them into two groups, and then systematically expose one group to second-hand smoke for a period of time while the other group stayed smoke-free. They would then have to wait and see if more of the group exposed to second-hand smoke developed lung cancer than the other group over their lives. This would be a very expensive and time-consuming experiment. Besides this, it would be very difficult to find people who had never breathed in cigarette smoke and keep half of them that way for their whole lives for comparison. Because of these difficulties in the ideal experiment, scientists often just use questionnaires, asking people to try and remember how many cigarettes the person they live with smokes in a day, for how many hours a day they are exposed to smoking, etc. These kinds of studies are far from precise, since human memory is not very accurate, and so no truly scientific conclusions can be drawn1. Therefore, it is not a fact that non-smokers exposed to the smoke of others are at a serious health risk, so the proposition cannot say that having to sometimes be around other people who smoke goes against non-smokers' human rights. 1 Basham, Patrick, and Roberts, Juliette, 'Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary?' Democracy Institute, Social Risk Series Paper, December 2009, http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf improve this
This ban would lower healthcare costs.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year[1], but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year[2]. So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money. [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009. [2]Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.    improve this