BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The idea of lifelong marriage arose in ancient times, when life expectancies were much shorter than ...

The idea of lifelong marriage arose in ancient times, when life expectancies were much shorter than today, and there was no other way apart from marriage to ensure a secure upbringing for the offspring of a union. Today, the idea that a permanent marriage is the only possible type of relationship is outdated, particularly as scientists now doubt whether human’s are actually monogamous by nature. Regardless of this, if a marriage is left without love, or if one partner is unhappy, then it should end. There is no point holding on in such a situation for the sake of a principle.
The idea of lifelong marriage arose in ancient times, when life expectancies were much shorter than ...

Modern expectations of a perfect marriage are unrealistic, and have been fostered by the entertainment industry’s concept of an ideal relationship. People should not go into marriage expecting perfection; nor should they think of marriage as based solely on romantic love. Marriage is both a union based on love and a practical partnership that, like all relationships, has ups and downs, and needs to be worked at to make it succeed. As such, it is right that a reason should be provided for a divorce to be granted, to prevent an over-hasty dissolution of a marriage that might have lasted if it had been worked at.
States have a strong moral, practical and financial interest in the raising of their future citizens...

States may well have an interest in how individuals raise their children, but an interest does not constitute by itself a right to intervene. Not all state support is provided ‘quid pro quo’. In some cases states should assist their citizens simply to provide them with basic rights we believe they are entitled to. For example, citizens have a (broad) right to healthcare regardless of how much care they take of their bodies. This may be expensive for the state, but it is considered a moral duty. Similarly, it may be expensive for states to leave parents to raise children who place a larger cost on society, but this does not give the state the right to overrule them and impose its own methods. We may fairly consider that individuals should have a normative right to be assisted by society in the raising of their children, but while the state should offer help, we cannot require parents to take advantage of it.
The reciprocal ‘right’ to support with the raising of children is different to that of healthcare. ...

The offer of state support for families does not create a reciprocal right to let the state interfere in childrearing. There is a fundamental difference between creating marginal incentives for citizens to have children through such mechanisms as the taxation system, and outright coercion, such as the removal of benefits or other significant state support. The former allows for meaningful autonomous decision making on the part of a citizen, whilst the latter places them in a coercive situation where their freedom is inherently compromised. This is a feature of an oppressive, rather than liberal state. Secondly, the division between ‘health’ and ‘lifestyle’ is not as clear as this point presupposes. For example, health services increasingly provide treatments such cosmetic surgery (e.g. for burns or cancer victims,) or IVF (for infertile couples). These treatments are expensive and medically unnecessary, but we recognise that the state should fund them because they are so integral to a normal human life. If the ability to conceive should be unconditionally funded by the state, then surely the raising of the child should be too?
If having childcare supported by the state is so overwhelmingly important, then surely parenting cla...

The issue is not as simple as the ‘net amount’ of state support, but the form that this support takes. Yes, parents do need material support (such as benefits, or day-care places) but they are also entitled to a private space in which they can raise their family as they wish. Basic parenting classes are already commonly available on a voluntary basis. People who are sufficiently daunted by the raising of a child can choose to attend these courses if they wish. However, it is not clear as to why parents who may have their own ideas about childcare must have the ideas of the state forced upon them. In some cases, the methods of the state may violate the religious or cultural identity of the family, proving highly offensive and causing social alienation.
Such classes would need to be compulsory for a number of reasons. Firstly - for all of the subjecti...

The idea of there being an ‘objectively correct’ way to raise a child is a strongly moralised conception. We can of course identify cases such as abuse or neglect, where we feel the wellbeing of a child is clearly violated. We may even want to include such issues as chronically poor diet in such a category. However, applying such a principle of ‘objectivity’ so widely risks demonising families who lovingly wish to raise their children according to their own beliefs. Educational standards, or behaviour are not the objective truths that the proposition supposes, and even in purportedly ‘scientific’ areas such as medical advice, parents have sincere and well founded fears regarding such issues as vaccination. More seriously, when the state introduces such standards of ‘good parenting’, it provide grounds to criticise virtually all parents – not just extreme cases. No parent or child is perfect – but the vast majority have the right to pursue this important and personal relationship without fear of societal stigma, suspicion or intrusion.
The sanctity of the private sphere is, once more, being exaggerated. As with issues such as domesti...

Firstly, social services have (chronically) limited budgets. Given this reality, it might well be desirable that states continue to focus their limited resources on the most appalling cases (such as abuse and neglect) rather than seek marginal improvements in the population at large. Secondly, one cannot meaningfully talk of the rights of children without some understanding of the interests of these children. And extreme cases aside, it is not at all clear that an enormously detached and monolithic body such as the state could ever understand the interests of children as well as their parents do. To micromanage down to the level of different children’s personalities is not just inefficient but dangerous. The judgement and good motives of parents have always historically been the best guarantor of the interests of their children. For the state to belittle, or attempt to circumvent these would be damaging, not beneficial, to the overall raising of children.
States have a strong moral, practical and financial interest in the raising of their future citizens...

States have a strong moral, practical and financial interest in the raising of their future citizens. This is why most liberal democracies offer extensive and costly child support systems (typically incorporating such benefits as child-support payments, free nursery care, parental leave arrangements and enhanced health and social care) to aid parents in raising young people who can be active and respectful members of society. It is natural that such generous support should require the recipient to take on responsibilities of their own – such as being sufficiently prepared for raising children. Compulsory parenting classes would not only benefit parents and children, whose educational outcomes, health and life chances are likely to be much improved as a result. It would also allow the state to ensure the cohesion and prosperity of its future generations by raising the standard of parenting they receive.
The reciprocal ‘right’ to support with the raising of children is different to that of healthcare. ...

The reciprocal ‘right’ to support with the raising of children is different to that of healthcare. A key principle behind state health services is that illness and injury are often unpredictable and down to sheer bad luck. Conversely, the act of having children is, or should be, an active choice on the part of individuals. Citizens can fairly expect the state to fund their treatment unconditionally when they become ill, because (in all but extreme cases) the condition will not be their choice. However, it does not seem to follow that citizens can make the decision to have children, and then demand that the state support this ‘lifestyle choice’ (through tax breaks, benefits and entitlements) without applying even minor conditions, such as parenting classes, to safeguard its interests. Most citizens will welcome parenting classes, but it is reasonable for the state to compel a recalcitrant minority through making its benefits conditional upon attendance.
If having childcare supported by the state is so overwhelmingly important, then surely parenting cla...

If having childcare supported by the state is so overwhelmingly important, then surely parenting classes are a natural, and valuable, extension of this. Becoming a parent is something many people are ill prepared for. Compulsory classes would help give parents the skills they need for the early years of their children's lives, and offer piece of mind and support to those who may struggle with the experience. Research shows that standard methods of disseminating health information for new parents are very inefficient and patchy (see the confusion over alcohol consumption during pregnancy for example). Standardised classes would ensure that every parent receives the same basic and essential information.
Such classes would need to be compulsory for a number of reasons. Firstly - for all of the subjecti...

Such classes would need to be compulsory for a number of reasons. Firstly - for all of the subjectivity regarding parenting – there are clearly some objectively good and bad parents. A morbidly obese 15 year old with a criminal record, no school qualifications and poor health has, almost certainly, been let down by his or her parents. However the state has no way of knowing in advance as to which parents will struggle in this manner – hence it is better if the classes are for everyone. Furthermore, it seems fair to assume that parents who are somehow socially excluded, wilfully ignorant or suffering some other acute difficulty in raising children, would probably be less likely to take the active step of attending voluntary classes in the first place. Thus voluntary classes may actually be structurally biased to miss the cases in which they are most needed. A compulsory system is likely to offer far better outcomes across society.
The sanctity of the private sphere is, once more, being exaggerated. As with issues such as domesti...

The sanctity of the private sphere is, once more, being exaggerated. As with issues such as domestic abuse – the right to privacy on the part of an individual can never be justification for ignoring tangible harms which they inflict on another. It may well be valuable that families have a sphere in which they can raise their children according to their own beliefs. But when these beliefs do not support the welfare of the child, then these parental rights directly conflict with the rights of children to receive an upbringing which allows them to flourish in their lives. Surely in these cases the health or future opportunities of the child must take precedence over the desire for privacy of a parent? It may not be possible (or desirable) to use legal or monitoring systems to encourage parents to take better care of their children. But parenting classes would help ensure the rights of young people to a decent upbringing, whilst only minimally infringing on the rights of parents to privacy.
Clerics will be incapable of representing their constituents equally; they will either be biased tow...

Clerics will be incapable of representing their constituents equally; they will either be biased towards their co-religionists or will fail to understand those of whom their faith disapproves. Religions can be exclusive and uninviting, judgemental and unforgiving. It is inappropriate for a cleric with such views to represent citizens and legislate on matters which affect their daily lives.
In a multicultural society it is unlikely that clerics will represent only their co-religionists. It...

In a multicultural society it is unlikely that clerics will represent only their co-religionists. It is wrong to expect the believers of one faith to be represented by the cleric of another faith. These are very delicate issues, and it could cause much unrest and protest if such a situation was imposed on a religious community. At the very least, those of other religions will see them as unapproachable. The principles of a secular state are nowhere more important than in a multi-faith state, in which overt displays of state affinity with one faith could damage relations between the state and those who adhere to another faith.
The views of religious clerics are more extreme and uncompromising than those of other people. The p...

The views of religious clerics are more extreme and uncompromising than those of other people. The presumption of divine or otherworldly authority and righteousness is an unacceptable one for elected representatives of the people. Political office holders must be capable of understanding alternative view-points and balancing these in order to take decisions; clerics would be too inflexible.
Implementing this measure is perfectly possible, although the details of its application will vary f...

Implementing this measure is perfectly possible, although the details of its application will vary from place to place depending upon local religious traditions. In some places it will be very easy to identify formally those who should be disabled from election, in others it may seem harder but local experience will similarly make it plain. Essentially, two overlapping groups would be affected: anyone paid to perform religious services, and anyone, paid or unpaid, with a formal role of spiritual leadership within a local faith community.
Religious clerics could be subject to the authority of a religious hierarchy. Political office hold...

The independence of the representative is a myth. Political parties instil rigid discipline, forcing politicians to ‘tow the party line’ rather than exercising independent judgement. Parties and individual politicians can also be dependent on special interest lobbies and campaign funds from private sources. Moreover, many clerics do speak out independently of their hierarchical structures, and clerics within political parties may be more willing to vote with their conscience, regardless of the 'party line'. In any case, we should allow the electorate to make their own judgements about the suitability and independence of particular candidates, and not make a blanket ruling against any ministers of religion from seeking office.
Clerics will be incapable of representing their constituents equally; they will either be biased tow...

Democratic countries should allow all adult citizens an equal chance to stand for political office. To ban religious clerics from pursuit of elected office is unjustifiable discrimination. Clerics have a set of beliefs about the world, morality and God. In this they are no different to anyone else. Indeed, their spirituality could make them ideal representatives and counsellors for their constituents – they will be by vocation approachable and easy to talk to. Furthermore, their pastoral work makes them very familiar with the problems of ordinary citizens, including poverty, injustice, educational issues, etc. - valuable insights for any legislator.
In a multicultural society it is unlikely that clerics will represent only their co-religionists. It...

It is surely just as problematic for religious communities to be represented by any politician who does not share their beliefs. To argue that people should only be represented by members of their own faith is undemocratic and segregationist. Moreover, belief in a faith, even a different faith, might well give a cleric a unique insight into the perspectives of his constituents. This might make a cleric a better representative than an atheist. In a multicultural community it is particularly valuable to have people of faith willing to reach out to engage with others, and to work together to solve the problems facing society.
The views of religious clerics are more extreme and uncompromising than those of other people. The p...

Extremists of every hue currently represent people in parliaments and legislative assemblies around the world. The most zealous politicians are often adherents of worldly, political ideologies like communism rather than religions. Allegations of uncompromising belief are equally applicable to devotees of non-religious ideologies and view-points. Religion should not be treated as any different. Even without having clerics in office, many countries already have political parties with religious roots; some of these are moderate, others more extreme.
Allowing clerics to stand for office risks compromising democracy. Faithful worshippers may see it ...

Allowing ministers of religion to stand for political office helps ensure a good mix in any elected assembly, which needs people from a range of different backgrounds. At a time when politics is increasingly seen as a career in itself, many representatives have no real business or life experience before entering into office. Allowing clerics to run for election would go some way to reintroducing people with extensive experience beyond the enclosed 'political village'. Moreover, clerics are much less likely than others to be influenced by corruption - a major issue in many countries.
Implementing this measure is perfectly possible, although the details of its application will vary f...

This measure is highly impractical and heavy-handed, as well as being discriminatory. Some religions have clear and organised hierarchies with full-time qualified and salaried priests or ministers; others rely upon part-time prayer leaders, religious teachers, preachers and pastors. Can we always tell whether someone is a minister of religion who should be banned, or merely a person whose deep faith involves them in spiritual and community leadership, but who relies upon other employment to make a living and so should be eligible for election? Should we ban everyone who has ever taught a Sunday school class or led a Bible study group?
Religious clerics could be subject to the authority of a religious hierarchy. Political office hold...

Religious clerics could be subject to the authority of a religious hierarchy. Political office holders must be independent and free from outside influence from private persons or organisations. It is unwise to allow such potentially compromised, subordinate individuals to have a role in taking a country’s decisions. Even if they tried to be neutral, allowing them to hold elected office undermines the separation of church and state, which is an important part of many countries' constitutions.
The argument that sales are going to drop is completely wrong and it has been used with cassette tap...

The argument that sales are going to drop is completely wrong and it has been used with cassette tapes and CD burners before. None of them had any effect on sales. Downloads are actually creating more demand and forcing record companies to make music available for purchase online, something they previously rejected. While music downloads are on the rise, overall music sales are also up. Moreover, distribution of MP3 files creates new markets in smaller countries where customers have less access to music in stores.
The internet allows for more plurality and gives music listeners more choices than commercial radio ...

MP3 files could in principle be a good way of promoting unknown artists, but nearly all the music that is shared and downloaded is highly commercial. In a trial against Napster, a random sample of songs that were downloaded was presented and only 14 out of 1150 songs were from unestablished artists. Moreover artists that don’t have record deals can freely choose to upload their music to the Internet and their music can be downloaded completely legally with their permission. They should have that choice, but musicians should also have the choice not to have their work widely distributed for nothing.
As soon as something is released into the public realm, it is, by definition, shared. Once someone ...

Unregulated distribution of copyrighted works is against existing copyright laws existing in most countries (especially in those that have the highest share of record and movie sale). The idea of 'fair use' allows people who have bought an album to lend it to a friend, or to play it in the car as well as at home, not to share it with thousands of other people they have never met before. Downloading copyrighted files is therefore simply a theft.
The fact is that the only artists making money off record royalties (receiving money from every copy...

By downloading music from the Internet one steals money from artists who are struggling to survive in the competitive music world. A few stars are incredibly rich, but most musicians make only a modest living from the royalties on their songs, paid to them every time a record is bought or played on the radio. Because of respect for the artists we should buy legal copies and with that bring money to artists we like.
The argument that sales are going to drop is completely wrong and it has been used with cassette tap...

Since people are downloading the music from the Internet, they are not buying it in stores. As record sales drop, recording companies see no reason to support new artists anymore and are willing to sign up only pop stars that are sure to bring commercial success. Over years record sales will drop even more, as more and more people will have gadgets that play MP3s. The end result will be fewer new acts and much less diversity of music for us all to enjoy.
It is not possible to regulate the distribution of copyrighted works. The internet is developing so...

While it may be impossible to detect every single download from the internet, that does not mean that we should stop fighting against infringement of copyright laws. For instance, lawsuits can be brought against both companies and individuals engaged in illegal filesharing. The argument that because we can’t do it perfectly, we shouldn’t try at all is ridiculous as we could then stop trying to catch pirates that burn CDs or tape videos and then sell them on a large scale.
As soon as something is released into the public realm, it is, by definition, shared. Once someone ...

As soon as something is released into the public realm, it is, by definition, shared. Once someone has paid for a work, in this case a song, why shouldn't they share it with anyone they choose - isn't that 'fair use'. An analogy can be made with public libraries, where anyone can walk in and read and photocopy anything. The same goes for VCRs, as movies can be recorded from the television. Copyright laws do not work in a vacuum and should adapt to existing reality.