BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the courts did not handle these issues, the mob likely would.

Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands. Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy[i], extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach. In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets. [i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.
People have a right to blaspheme

The right to free speech is not a license to express any opinion regardless of the context. It’s equivalent of standing in a Museum and shouting, “Fire”. It is in these environments that caution is required. Allowing free speech is one thing, allowing speech likely to cause harm is another is quite a different. There is a crucial difference between public and private space. Where offensive remarks are made in the public space then the blasphemer has knowingly put themselves and others in danger and - citing such principals as civic responsibility and the social contract, governments would have both a responsibility and a duty to use their legal powers.
Blasphemy causes offence to groups and individuals

If any state were to try and protect their citizens against all offence, it would have to ban everything. It is difficult to see how such a process could work – one that would allow Saudi men to be offended by the sight of a woman driver and, at the same time, those of a more liberal nature to be offended by them not driving.  A test of legislation should be whether it can be universalised, where offence can be taken in both directions that is not, and cannot, be the case. As a result it is clear that legislation is an inappropriate tool to use in regards to blasphemy. The issue is not disagreeing with the particular piece of legislation but with the idea that legislation in this area should be introduced at all. Moreover the examples of limitations on the media used are not good parallel’s to blasphemy as blasphemy may be either unintentional or else be on the spur of the moment which is not the case with the media.
Blasphemy is comparable to legislation banning hate speech

There are clear differences between racist, sexist or homophobic language and blasphemy. Hate speech legislation exists to protect minorities against being abused. A blasphemy ban, by contrast, simply perpetuates the influence of already powerful interest groups. Equally, to develop ops theory of sudden vigilante groups springing up to seek out the blasphemer – hate speech legislation seeks to protect the likely victim of a violent crime, according to Opposition, blasphemy legislation would seek to support the perpetrators.
Based on allegation rather than proof (cf. Sorcery, witchcraft, etc.)

Blasphemy, by its nature, is ‘all in the eye of the beholder’. It is impossible, in most cases, to determine whether there was intent on the part of the accused and as a result it is difficult to codify in legislation. Equally, unless the law takes a particular theological position, one person’s blasphemous slur is another’s sacred profession. It relies on the predicate that the person alleging blasphemy was offended or felt their faith was under attack. Of course these offences are very real and may at times be possible to codify but they cannot be applied universally because the perceptions they necessitate are not universal. As a result, as in the case given above, allegation and proof must be deemed to be the same thing - to be accused is to be found guilty[i]. Acts of blasphemy cannot rest on intuited human norms – I do not wish to be harmed in this way therefore you do not wish it either – because those involved have a different understanding of the harm. In the light of this there may be many remedies for blasphemy but legislation in general and criminal sanctions in particular cannot be appropriate. [i] The Economic Times. Rajiv Jayaram. Blasphemy law represents coercive nature of Pakistan towards minorities. 27 August 2012.
Inevitably protects entrenched interest groups (Church in Crucible, Muslims in Pakistan)

In the event of two different perceptions of what constitutes harm, there is a tendency for that of the larger group to be seen as normative and, therefore, correct. This is shown to be the case in the example given here but also in other instances from the Salem witch trials to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie[i]; the fact that there was an authorising body – in the shape of an orthodox religious body – the allegation itself acquires the force of that orthodoxy. It is rare for minority beliefs to have much success and almost unknown for secularists to do so. Several cases in North America brought in an effort to protect the religious rights of Wiccans, for example, yielded little as they lacked the force of religious orthodoxy[ii]. In states where there is either great homogeneity of belief or there is a theological element in the courts or political system, this has tended to be even more the case. This is particularly true of states that identify themselves officially with one religion, and especially so in the case of Islamic states[iii]. [i] The Guardian. Looking back at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. 14 September 2012. [ii] Religioustolerance.org. Wiccan education and anti-defamation groups. [iii] Viewpoint. The Blasphemy syndrome. 12 October 2012.
People have a right to blaspheme

In the laws that come the closest in framework to blasphemy – libel, slander defamation and a range of incitement laws – there is a requirement to prove harm. This level of proof is not set at the level of being offended or believing that a problem may ensue, and certainly not at the level of just disagreeing with a statement. If there is no proof of harm then the principle of free speech stands, usually termed as a ‘justifiable comment’ in defamation defences. It is entirely possible to respect the rights of others to hold an opinion and, as in this case, disagree with that opinion[i]. For anything other than that as the only logical basis for discussing blasphemy, it would be necessary to demonstrate a causal link to actual or probable harm – usually this proof requires either financial or physical harm to be involved[ii]. In the case of blasphemy, such harm cannot be demonstrated. There is also an interesting point of whether God can be said to have been harmed and whether it is possible for a third party, other than the state, to act as a result of harm having been caused to another. As a result, since harm cannot be proven and neither, in most cases, as we have seen in the previous argument, can intent be proven, it is difficult to see how blasphemy is anything other than free speech. It is far easier for other social groups – sexual and political minorities, people of disabilities and others – to prove both harm and intent of statements and actions but lack the legal protection given to religious organisations through blasphemy laws.  [i] See principle seven of the Free Speech Debate principles. [ii] Wikipedia. Defamation.
Being fat causes problems for everyone

Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].
Other taxes try to change behaviour

Taxes that try to change people’s behaviour on things that are not liked have been used since the 16th century, and are commonly applied to alcohol, smoking and gambling. In the US, when cigarette prices went up 4%, use dropped by 10% [11]. As this worked with tobacco, which creates similar health problems to obesity, this tried and tested strategy can work. Research has shown that when the price of unhealthy food goes up, people eat less of it [12]. A fat tax would make people healthier.
Unhealthy food is cheaper

A reason why people eat unhealthy foods is that it’s often cheaper and easier than cooking something with fresh ingredients. Studies have shown that not only is junk food cheaper, its costs are less likely to increase due to inflation [14]. This was confirmed by research in Australia that showed that while healthy food became more expensive, junk food got cheaper [15]. Obesity is more common amongst poorer people. Because junk food is so cheap, it is eaten more. The best way to change this consumption pattern is to tax unhealthy food so that the healthy option is also the cheaper option.
Such a tax would not work

A fat tax would only produce a slight change in behaviour. Research by the London School of Economics said that “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly. [16]” People like fast fatty food because it is quick and tasty. Eating is something we need to do to live – it solves a specific need quickly, and people are happy to pay for it. [17] Obesity has many causes. It is not something that can be solved with something as simple as a fat tax. Things like healthy food vending machines, more exercise and better education would be more effective in the long run.
Costs more to those who can’t afford to pay

A fat tax will be a tax on poor people. It will hit the poorest, those who can least afford to pay it. It is the poorest who buy the cheapest food because they can’t afford otherwise and who are least likely to have the kitchen equipment necessary to prepare healthy meals. Because it is what they know they will simply end up paying more taxes and having less money to spend on anything else. The result will be attempts to save by eating even worse food, or cutting back on some other necessity such as heating. [19] The impact of rising food prices and concerns that the result would be turning to worse food is what stopped Romania from introducing such a tax in 2010. [20]
Being fat causes problems for everyone

The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.
Free choice

This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others. Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.
Costs more to those who can’t afford to pay

A fat tax could be offset by subsidizing the price of healthier foods so that the overall food budget is unaffected. No one will be forcing the poor to pay this tax as the intention is to have them change their eating habits. The families that would be affected by the tax most are those affected most by obesity related disease. Spending some money now on food would save a lot more later in health care. It will also make them more productive at work, meaning a better economy and hopefully higher wages to help compensate. [21]
Malls promote competition and serve consumers well

Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1. 1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen:
Out of town centres bring development in their wake.

Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing "brownfield" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1. 1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28). improve this
Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience

Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of "free" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1. 1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian: improve this
Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment

Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1 1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland:
Out of town malls damage town centres

Out of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites. 1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch: improve this
Out of town centres damage local communities' identities

Out of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can "hollow out" the community identity and economic viability of the original town. 1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly:
Malls promote competition and serve consumers well

Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become "hollowed out", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.). 1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review: improve this
Out of town centres bring development in their wake.

Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities. improve this
Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience

t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice. improve this
Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres. improve this
Out of town malls damage town centres

Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs. improve this