BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It can be selfish

Harming one's own body can cause unfair pain to loved ones and this should be prevented where unjustifiable. You cannot presume that harming your own body will not affect others. No doubt if you grow up in a family home where one or both parents are, for example, taking drugs it is going to affect you, possibly in negative ways. Furthermore, extreme cases of self-harming or drug taking can lead to the death of the individual involved. Surely it would be niave and unfair to suggest this would not affect others? Therefore how you trat your own body can have an impact on others and to not consider this would be very selfish.
Not everyone is able to make informed decisions

In this motion you have failed to say to whom this would apply? I must therefore assume that ALL people should be allowed to treat their bodies as they wish. I can therefore infer that children would be allowed these sorts of rights. Do you really suggest that children should be allowed to take drugs, get tattoos and self-harm? And what about those who are mentally unwell? For those people in society who are unable to make informed decisions, to legally be able to treat their bodies in any way they wish would surely be devastating! In these cases, others would have to make the decision for them. So why not the state?
it's extremely hard to make sure that what a person does on himself has no effects on others

Generally, people can not live isolately as they have a lot of relationship and contacts with others. intentionally or unintentionally, their actions may have less or more effect on others. Imagine how a mum feel when seeing her child takes drugs or do something harmful to his health? Furthermore, what a leader or influential person does often have great impact on other people. It can lead to copy-cat or imitation.
Since the body is not the property of others

People have a right to do what they like to their own bodies - if it belongs to anyone, it is theirs, certainly not anyone else's. Therefore only they should be allowed to do whatever they like to it. John Stuart Mill In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[[ Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. http://www.bartleby.com/130/ 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph9, ]]
Concerns above and beyond the physical body.

I may have an important and legitimate reason for harming my body, something I feel outweighs the pain I cause myself. For instance, I may be seeking spiritual enrichment through mortification of the flesh, or I might just feel that the ends justify the means - for instance, missing a few nights of sleep to get an essay finished on time. Why should someone else who has totally different beliefs and values to me and doesn't understand why I don't value my physical shell get to dictate to me what I can and can't do with it? Why is a view of someone with a different psychological make-up and philosophy to the accepted norm (by the majority, who aren't always right) automatically 'irrational'? What would you do if it really turned out hitting yourself with a hammer sent you to heaven?
The loan strategy of the IBRD is inherently risky. Donor countries are able to make triennial contri...

The strategy for financing the loans of the IBRD is remarkably efficient. Member countries purchase shares in IBRD but pay to the Bank only 7% of the cost of shares. The remainder is ‘callable’ as a promise to pay if necessary. These contingent liabilities for donors allow the IBRD to raise the vast majority of money required for its operations from international capital markets of Europe, Japan and the United States. The reduced cost of the shares and the capacity of the Bank to raise commercial finance rather than rely solely on contributions of donor countries, guarantees that the capital contribution expected of the donor countries remain reasonable. Furthermore, the irresponsible fiscal policies of developing countries is not rewarded by the Bank. From the mid-1990s, compliance with codes of ‘best practice’ is mandatory in order to receive loans. Thus, developing countries are obliged to institute systems of banking regulation and supervision, corporate governance and accounting that facilitate repayment of the loans and the attraction of foreign direct investment.
The loan strategy of the IBRD is inherently risky. Donor countries are able to make triennial contri...

The loan strategy of the IBRD is inherently risky. Donor countries are able to make triennial contributions without necessarily being able to underwrite the 93% potential additional cost of each share. The default of Mexico on repayment of its debts in 1982 indicates the weakness of reliance on ‘callable’ liabilities. Only 3% of the Bank portfolio is set aside to protect against the loss of revenue from defaulting debtors. By way of contrast, JP Morgan sets aside funds equivalent to 100% of the sum borrowed, and the Canadian government insists on a minimum of 35% for the operation of lending operations of investment banks. Moreover, the risk of default and thus the exposure to full liability is routinely disguised by the process of ‘debt round tripping’. Where default appears imminent, the IBRD seeks the direct transfer of funds from rich country donors. Alternatively, the IBRD can seek debt restructuring through the Paris Club of creditors; the issue of new IBRD loans to refinance the old ones that come due; or even the transfer of cheap, interest free IDA credits to repay the IBRD loans. In short, the shift of credits from one side of the World Bank to the other, or the creation of additional loans does nothing to balance the books. Debtor countries are simply encouraged to borrow or beg their way out of deficit.
The contribution of donor countries to the World Bank is a poor investment. The Bank purchased adver...

The World Bank should not seek its justification in being a financially sound investment for the donor countries. The broadest objective of the Bank is the alleviation of poverty and long term economic development, not generating a turnover for its shareholders. The shareholders benefit from finding an efficient agency to distribute the funds that have been earmarked for donation in the form of foreign aid rather than overseas investment. As commentators have noted, to argue that aid helps the domestic economy is like saying a shopkeeper benefits from having his cash register burgled so long as the burglar spends part of the proceeds in his shop! In any case, the IBRD represents a very favourable investment for donor countries that more than offsets the lower returns from IDA. For example, Germany receives $29.22 in contracts per taxpayer dollar contributed to IDA, and Japan $6.54 for the equivalent payment. The World Bank encourages direct investment in developing countries and bilateral investment treaties between these countries and the donor States. However, the Bank infrastructure is necessary in order to ensure donations are spread evenly across the developing world and applied to long term and sustainable projects. Private profit is not a sufficient motive to guarantee development.
The contribution of donor countries to the World Bank is a poor investment. The Bank purchased adver...

The contribution of donor countries to the World Bank is a poor investment. The Bank purchased advertisements in American daily newspapers that proclaimed; ‘World Bank : A Good Investment’ and asserted that the US companies received $1 in contracts for each dollar the United States contributes to the IDA. However, a US Treasury study showed that US companies in fact received only $0.23 in procurement for every dollar paid into IDA. Consequently, in 1997 the US refused to provide its assessed contribution to IDA. The inefficiency of the World Bank infrastructure suggests that US companies could receive a better financial return and have a more instant impact upon local development by direct investment in the developing countries.
The public infrastructure projects funded by the IBRD have consistently been recognized as unmitigat...

It is not necessary to deny that some of the infrastructure projects supported by the IBRD, from the road-building schemes in the 1980s to the dam construction programmes of the 1990s, failed to reduce poverty and caused a degree of environmental damage. However, the appointment of James Wolfensohn as President of the World Bank in 1995 has heralded a new and bright dawn for the group. The Bank has successfully adopted a growing role in the spheres of biodiversity, ozone depletion, narcotics, crime, corruption, and postconflict reconstruction, particularly in the Balkans and West Bank. The new objectives of the World Bank will undeniably improve the quality of lives of the populations of developing countries. The funding of programmes to facilitate the halving by 2015 the number of people living in absolute poverty; the achievement by 2015 of universal primary education in all countries; and the establishment of gender equality in primary and secondary education by 2005 will offer tangible assistance to development, unlike the construction of roads and dams. In addition, the Bank has pledged to reduce infant and child mortality; ensure universal access to reproductive health services; and to reverse the loss of environmental resources.
The public infrastructure projects funded by the IBRD have consistently been recognized as unmitigat...

The public infrastructure projects funded by the IBRD have consistently been recognized as unmitigated disasters. Notably, Brazil’s Polonoroeste road-building project set a significant portion of the Amazon rainforest on fire; the Sardar Sarovar dam project in India uprooted 240,000 Indians and was condemned by the World Bank’s own panel of investigators; the Singrauli coal projects also in India were described as the 'lower circles of Dante’s inferno'. Internal reports suggest that one-third of World Bank financed projects are failing. Canada has called on its G7 partners to undertake a value-for-money audit of the loan portfolio. The current investment strategy has attracted similarly severe criticism from the ‘Bretton Woods Commission’ that comprises the most powerful bankers and financiers in the world. The mere fact that the directors of the Bank have finally recognized that development is not guaranteed by the financing of large construction projects does not show that it will succeed where its past projects have failed. The Bank has neither the expertise nor the mandate to become an education and health charity. Moreover, this ‘mission creep’ creates a risk that the Bank may be duplicating the role of existing UN agencies and non governmental organizations (NGOs). UNESCO and UNDP are currently capable of implementing the majority of the strategies that the Bank has suddenly arrogated to itself.
The World Bank investment policy consolidates the position of the corrupt, inefficient and antidemoc...

The World Bank correctly prioritises economic development over other social values. The ‘Washington consensus’ reached in the early 1980s following the debt repayment crisis in Latin America requires that loans are offered in exchange for government commitments to economic reform. The liberalization of capital markets, the adoption of realistic exchange rates, and tax reform does assist the impoverished of any society. To withhold such dramatic financial benefits on account of the human rights record of the government would serve only to punish the poor for the actions of their unelected leaders. The democratic deficit suffered by the poor of these countries is more than ever being rectified by the involvement of international and local NGOs in the loan process.
The World Bank investment policy consolidates the position of the corrupt, inefficient and antidemoc...

The World Bank investment policy consolidates the position of the corrupt, inefficient and antidemocratic regimes of many developing countries. The Bank has evinced willingness to deal directly with almost any government without sensitivity to their human rights record. Given that developing countries are both shareholders and clients in the Bank, the agencies are unlikely to admit that loans to a particular regime will not achieve any benefit until a reformed government achieves power. The negotiation process between the Bank and the regime is invariably closed and the circulation of Bank reports restricted to the participants. The poor are disenfranchised from the very institution supposed to support their development.
Published submissions on wikileaks are not 'rumours'

[[http://wikileaks.ch/Submissions.html]] Material we accept Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance. We do not accept rumor, opinion, other kinds of first hand accounts or material that is publicly available elsewhere. This is because our journalists write news stories based on the material, and then provide a link to the supporting documentation to prove our stories are true. It’s not news if it has been publicly available elsewhere first, and we are a news organisation. However, from time to time, the editors may re-publish material that has been made public previously elsewhere if the information is in the public interest but did not have proper news analysis when first released. If you are sending us something, we encourage you to include a brief description of why the documents is important and what the most significant parts are within the document. It will help our journalists to write up and release the story much faster.
Wikileaks is lying about being a non profit

Both Wikipedia on Wikileaks and Wikileaks itself state to be a non-profit organization. But Wikileaks WAS NEVER a non-profit organization. Wikileaks is a private business of Julian Assange, which was later incorporated and registered as a private limited company named SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, with Julian Assange having 94% of shareholding. A true non-profit organization, regardless where it is registered, either in Australia, Sweden, Iceland or United States, has some important characteristics. A true non-profit organization is registered, transparent, accountable, responsible and abides by law. Wikileaks aka Julian Assange aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF are nothing of that. Both Julian Assange and the company SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, lie on their websites to be a non-profit organization: http://wikileaks.ch/About.html where they state: "WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation". The suffix EHF in Iceland means "private limited company" and such company is forbidden to claim to be a non-profit organization. Private limited companies with shareholders may not be called "non-profit" organizations. The business purpose of his WikiLeaks company, aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF in Icelandic say that the company's purpose is the production, editing and distribution of media content, video content, language and print media, web design and hosting industry, retailers and wholesalers, real estate and business lending and related activities. Full company documents are to be found here: http://wikileakscriminalorganization.com
Wikileaks is not registered.

Wikilekas is NOT an entity, it is not an organization, and it was NOT REGISTERED anywhere under the name "Wikileaks". It was not a legal entity nor any kind of organization, but a private loose group of people led by Julian Assange. Wikileaks have been sending press releases and promoting itself as an international non-profit organization, at the time when it was not an entity organized or registered under any law. To claim in public to be non-profit organization may be alone a criminal act in many of related countries, including Australia, Iceland, Sweden and United States.
Wikileaks is not transparent

Wikileaks was never transparent enough to say who is behind the supposed "non-profit organization". They have tried and are still deceiving the large public to be a non-profit, while in turn it was private revenue system of the entrepreneur Julian Assange. Today, they state on their website, correctly, that "WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press", and they deceive the public to send "donations" to the private limited company, for profit organized, SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF. Wikileaks is further deceiving the public, by claiming it is a non-profit organization, and don't want to disclose, that the company has four shareholders, which are: Julian Paul Assange, with 470,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital; Kristinn Hrafnsson, from Reykjavik with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital; Ingi R. Ingason, Mosfellsbaer with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital; Gavin MacFadyen, U.S. citizen, living in London, with 10,000 Icelandic Kronas in share capital; Wikileaks business model is based on supposed transparency of the government, while they directly fail to provide its own transparency.
Wikileaks is not accountable

There are so many other non-profit organizations which strives for transparency of the government and corporations. There is nothing wrong in asking for transparency and making actions that transparency happen. But when there is a non-profit organization, such an organization actually spends the money into non-profit purposes, and one may see the accountancy, the transaction books, donations to other non-profit organizations or humanitarian purposes. Wikileaks hasn't published so far any public balances, profit and loss statements or any publicly audited books and accounts. Where does money go? Only Julian Assange may know. They openly ask for donations, to be sent in the option one, to SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, Icelandic private limited company, with bank account in Iceland, with the Iceland Landsbanki bank. But they decline to say openly to public that any such donations to Wikileaks are not tax deductible because Wikileaks is not a non-profit organization. It is a private limited company subject to corporate tax rate of 18% in Iceland. Any "donations" that arrive to bank account of SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, are subject to corporate income and taxation, provided they have an accountant to honestly report the profits. Any donations which arrive through the German foundation WAU HOLLAND, are not transparent and this foundation has so far failed to provide financial accounts for Wikileaks. As one may read here: http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-audit.htm the foundation has been asked by Wikileaks insiders to provide financial accounts, but they grossly failed in their promises. Further, WAU HOLLAND foundation has been denied Paypal account for the reason that they support "illegal activities". Wikileaks fails in showing where the money goes? Does it truly go to humanitarian purposes? Or it ends up in the Julian Assange's pockets and bank accounts? Public has been deceived in large that Wikileaks is non-profit organization, yet, it is nothing but an intelligently organized scam and fraud, earning profits under the name of non tax deductible donations.
Wikileaks is not responsible

Publishing blindly thousands of documents which cause so much of public confusion and nuisance, all for the sake of Julian Assange's profits, may not be called responsible at all. We have to understand that Julian Assange is yet another pathetic computer expert, without true production and benefit for his environment and society. All he knows is programming, entering the forbidden computer channels and growing his self-ego. It is not known if he ever had a true job or a company. Publishing the information that does not belong to Wikileaks, without any care for the people affected by such information is irresponsible and psychotic.
Wikileaks does not abide by the law

Wikileaks does not abide by the laws. Julian Assange did not care of any laws. His anarchistic approach to revealing the information is based on profit opportunities, as his true purpose is to earn money. To get paid by New York Times, to get paid by Guardian and other media companies. Finally, he has a private company registered for that purpose, and that private company runs the Wikileaks project. To abide by the law, one shall come onto the important information by lawful means. There exists laws such as Freedom of Information Act in United States which may be used to provide more government transparency. One has to assume that every government, every company and every individual, do have some secret information. Having secret information is nothing wrong and may be legitimate. One does not go online with army officers such as Bradley Manning to get onto the secret information, and truly let that person suffer in jail. Driving someone onto criminal acts is criminal act itself. And that is why Julian Assange is afraid. He is a coward who knows that is not able to live in a society of law and order. Julian Assange is struggling to fight being extradited to Sweden on sexual assault and rape allegations.
Abiding by the law is a contradiction in terms

One of the arguments that infuriates me is that Wikileaks is not an NPO because it does not "abide by the law." What law? The law of the United States, the laws of the International Court at the Hague,Swedish law? Each country has its own set of laws. These laws apply within each country's unique jurisdiction. Does a country abide by the law when it assassinates suspected terrorists willy-nilly and without any accountability? There are many countries that practice this policy every day and they are not attacked for "not abiding by the law." Wikileaks' primary purpose is to illuminate the human rights violations that countries purporting to uphold transgress on a daily basis. The distribution of information is not profitable in monetary terms to anyone, unless they have something to hide, such as the Bank of America. Separate Assange from Wikileaks and then analyse whether or not he or they are NPO's. Do not confuse the man with the organisation. Decide what set of laws that Wikileaks is bound to uphold and then make an argument based upon abiding by the law or not.
Wikileaks is lying about being a non profit

Sunshine press is an American company that promotes start-ups to help entrepreneurs. Julian Assange has nothing to do with that Sunshine press and neither does wiki-leaks. Funds and support for wiki-leaks come from everywhere, those who siphon in money to keep the process going are not the process itself. [[http://wn.com/sunshinepress?orderby=published]] The argument on the left is akin to stating that if a bunch of doctors sent debatewise funds through their clinic, then debatewise is not a non-profit organization but a hospital.[[http://www.sunshinepress.com/]] Sponsors and organizations are separate entities. Needless to state, there are many many companies named "Sunshine press" but only one claims a link with wikileaks. [[http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunshine-Press/109174195782437]] and that sunshine press is non-profit. [[http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/wikileaks]] [[http://wikileaks.ch/]]