BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is fact, according to a creationist

Science is seen as a discussion of fact. The common disclaimer against creationism is that it is not a discussion of fact, rather a discussion of belief. Discussion on belief, arguably, has no place in the science lab. What gives anyone the right to deny a person their religion, and claim that what they lead their life on cannot be true or fact, because it has not been scientifically proven? Surely a belief, something someone believes wholeheartedly, for which they are willing to die, overrules any scientific experiment. Why can it not be fact? The Bible was written over a span of 1,200 years and is comprised of 66 separate books. What if these were written by renowned and respected scientists? Would creationism then be treated respectfully and taught undisputedly in science lessons? Therefore, the issue is that creationism is seen as an implausible hypothesis because it is based on belief. This is not enough to exclude it from a scientific discussion.
The US Constitution protects freedom of religion.

The US Constitution does not allow the establishment of any one religion, but it also protects freedom of religion, which means that the government cannot put down people’s faith. By teaching that evolution is true, schools are telling them that their religious beliefs are wrong. This attack on their faith amounts to a denial of religious belief, which clearly goes against everything the American Founding Fathers stood for. The creationist view that the entire natural world was created directly by God should be taught instead.
Creationism lacks scientific support, therefore should not be taught in a science lesson

Who made it so that the curriculum for a science lesson has to be backed up by scientific knowledge? Maybe it is now time that science lessons are comprised of debateable issues that can be argued and reasoned amongst students. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory, as is creationism. If creationism does not belong in a science lesson because it has not been proved then The Big Bang Theory should be taken off of our science curriculum (and off of our television program listings for that matter!)
Students deserve to learn about different theories from each religion

Creationism is a religious belief, and should best be taught in a religious education class rather than a science class. The same goes for multiculturalism, which is not a topic which should be taught in science, rather PSHE type classes. Creationism does not rest upon the principles of science- empiricism and rationality, instead it rests upon revelation. Related is Intelligent Design, which is effectively an attempt to show that an "Intelligent Designer" had some effect upon nature. Yes, students should learn about 'different BELIEFS from each religion'. However, science classes are not the place for this. religious education classes are.
Multiple points why this makes no sense

1) Creationism cannot be proven, and teaching this could devalue due scientific process in a scientific learning environment 2) Impending a religion on all of the students in a classroom is unconstitutional 3) Our founding fathers created a very clear line seperating the state from the church, and if we are talking about PUBLIC schooling here, that is a government run AND funded program. 4) Not all of the students in the classroom will be christian/catholic. How will you teach creation to hindus, buddhist, and jews? 5) There are laws stating that teachers are forbidden to teach religion and politics in the classroom.
It is already taught in most religious education lessons

The purpose of a religious education lesson is too study beliefs, doctrines, rituals, customs, rites and personal roles of each religion in turn. During a religious education lesson, the teaching is not presented as fact, but discussed and mulled over as beliefs shared by millions of individuals. Creationism is already taught in religious education lessons and has not, up till now, created a problem. It seems unnecessary and inconvenient for teachers and students alike. What would be the need of removing it from the curriculum of religious education and transferring it too science?
Evolution has not been proved: it is a theory used to explain visible facts.

Evolution is a theory that is based on scientific facts that can be demonstrated, but creationism is based on the revelations found in scripture. Creationism cannot be taught as science because it does not follow standard scientific methods. Intelligent Design is put forward as a scientific alternative to evolution in an attempt to get round the 1st amendment. But ID still relies on a Christian-style creator God to explain away any difficulty, so it is no more scientific in approach than creationism.
Creationism lacks scientific support, therefore should not be taught in a science lesson

Scientists go to great lengths to prove their theories. Thousands and thousands of experiments are carried out in order to make scientific breakthrough discoveries. The Big Bang Theory is just one of many theories that scientists throughout the centuries have strived to prove. The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and has been mulled over since then, particularly by the British physicist, Stephen Hawking. Creationism does not have any scientific support: despite it being believed by millions and believed for thousands of years. Surely, by now, someone would have been able to scientifically prove this. It is not worthy of being taught in a science lesson. Creationism is a theory, true, but no more valid scientifically than that of the film The Matrix- it could be true but it does not seem likely to be proven, at least not scientifically. It is certainly worth discussing for those so interested, but it is not of true scientific value in the way that the Big Bang theory, for example, is.
Corporate culture necessitates treating corporations as a collective, rather than as a collection of individuals

Opposition believes that there is need for specific targeting of corporations in law, due to the fact that corporations are unique entities that need legal addressing as a single form, and not as a disjoint band of individuals. Corporate law creates corporate liability for the actions of its workers, and this is essential in order to fight the crimes that corporate culture creates, both intentionally and unintentionally. Corporate culture is very competitive, both between corporations and workers that are constantly vying for better positions. It also creates a kind of identity - someone is a “Mitsubishi worker”, and that’s how he defines himself. For example in Japan, which is a key origin of corporate culture, we see that corporations supply everything to their workers, from housing to entertainment. This creates loyalty, which, when a worker feels that illegal measures are expected of him, he faces a choice between the certainty of losing his whole life and future if he won’t put the corp before all, or the mere possibility of being caught. An easy calculation. When the only thing that the corp cares about is the bottom line, and bribing will bring better results, corps create a culture that encourages the employee to break laws, while the true liability to his actions is actually with the corporation. Here we change the bottom line: without the law, corporation would prefer to turn a blind eye on its employees’ misdeeds, as they know if the employee is caught, he will personally be penalized, while the corp is not damaged. the corp profits anyway with no downside. Anti-bribery laws ensure corps review their internal procedures, so as not to be harmed.[[http://is.gd/Xnx3hw]] Without corporate law, the law can only put to trial the employee who committed the crime, and the bigwigs that pushed him towards it. Therefore, we believe that if a corporation creates a reality in which its workers need to break the law, the corporation should be liable.
Abolishing anti-Bribary laws allows criminals to escape accountability

In the real world, unlike Prop’s case, there will always be corruption. But following the proposition, we will only rely on the corporations’ good will, plus we won’t be able to act significantly against corruption. Without corporate law, we can only sue individuals for criminal acts, but the nature of corporations might make this impossible. Corporations are multinational entities, spread through different cities and states, with byzantine structure that could confuse any investigation - who has acted on any action, and by who’s authority. By acting through a number of internal & external middlemen[[http://tinyurl.com/3lqvnkn]] the corporation can hide its trail. Only by treating the corporation as an independent legal entity can we connect the dots and get the ability to sue for the crime. The more actors cooperate in a bribe, the harder it is to prove that anyone of them has breached every clause of the law in the needed way to show a criminal offence. The moment that several branches of a corporation commit a crime as a whole, but each branch only commits a part of the crime, then we cannot find individual culpability, while the complete entity is still responsible for a crime. More than that, the ability of the state to act against offenders abroad is very limited, while corporate law allows it to hurt the corporation where it’s vulnerable - its bottom line. This allows the state not to punish the low-level employees pushed to crime (as demonstrated in our corporate culture point), which doesn’t significantly harm the corporation, and so doesn’t deter future crimes. Instead, corporate law, which puts fines or even forbids a guilty corporation from trading in a country is exactly the type of needed deterrent - In order to prevent & punish corporate malfeasance, we need to view the corporation as whole both for the purpose of criminal investigation, and punishment.
2. The mixture between “dirty” & corrupt governments and “clean” & ethical corporations is simply impossible.

It is clear that enforcing anti-bribery laws is dependent on national governments which are often corrupt and discretionary. Indeed, there are now international mechanisms which can control better how national governments behave (the EU in the case of corrupt countries such as Bulgaria or Romania, for instance), but all in all there is no way that excessive restrictions (such as anti-bribery laws) would set the way for an ethical relationship between the business environment and the political one, insofar as national governments chose to cooperate de jure, but not de facto. It is especially the case of developing countries, with post-communist traditions, aggressive capitalism and greedy politicians. It is unarguable that corruption exists even in long-established democracies, with improved ethical political behaviour, but nor tradition, neither morals prevented UK MPs to accept bribes. Similarly, overpaid MEPs still found several hundreds of thousands of euros attractive for tabling amendments to legislation being passed in the EU assembly. [1] http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/journalistic-spoof-traps-meps-bribery-affair-news-503281 So punishing corporations in addition to established laws against bribery for individuals and politicians is like buying a more expensive leash for a wild dog. It doesn’t tame the beast, but it just diverts our attention to the supply on the corruption market, instead of tackling the core of the issue, which is the demand. One could argue that with anti-bribery laws, prosecutors often cooperate with corporations which in theory are more motivated to be more proactive in their fight against corruption. Indeed, facts show us that sometimes a settlement is more favorable to a company than prosecution, but how is that more effective? On the contrary, we state that this kind of cooperation creates the opportunity for inappropriate government interventions, feeding the demand-supply chain of the corruption market. In other words.
Anti-bribery laws are consistent with Government mandate and responsibility

Today as things stand if someone commits a crime they go to jail. If a corporation commits a violation of corporate law it is fined, sanctioned, etc. Prop tried to advocate that with Anti-Bribery laws, in the case of corporations, they should be an exception to the general rule. To begin with, this is a problem because both sides agree that bribery is still considered a very bad thing. So Prop’s only real major claim left is their logic that corps can police themselves better than the Government can. This has a few underlying premises: 1. Corps have the best interest of the general public, or at least on the same level of a government judicial body – otherwise, if they will err to the side of their own interest, they are not the best to arbitrate. 2. That in practicality this would catch more corruption and have a better practical outcome. Governments were created to take care of people, protect their interest and arbitrate when needed. As evident from the above, corporations and their employees are not the right body to fight bribery. We need to give authority and power to protect the population’s interest, to those who are more likely to have these interests at the top of their priorities. Those that who are less likely to err in favor of themselves when they can, instead of erring on the side of public interest. The financial crisis of late 2000s is a vivid example of the risks in not doing so.[[http://is.gd/XILPwQ]] We’ve also shown in our points how the government is the most effective in fighting bribery. But most importantly: Even If corps would be as impartial as the government and Even If they could be more efficient - current anti bribery laws do some good and are still a deterrent, as we proved. So, while we agree that reforms could be instated and the system isn't perfect, at best this new system of checks and balances -can work alongside- the existing one, and doesn’t call for abolishing the law as the only possible solution.
Companies have the interest of controling internal corruption themselves.

A better way out of this problem is abolishing anti-bribery laws for corporations and ensuring a more friendly climate where corporations themselves fight against corruption because it is yet another opportunity to create “shared value” for the society. In addition, since bribes negatively affect corporations’ competitive position, it is their interest to report irregularities and apart from the existing legal frameworks stipulating public procurement issues, for instance, there is no need for extra-rules that add more to the same. Not only are companies part of the corruption equation, “but they also have the ability to exert significant influence over government policies and practices.” [2] http://www.ethics.org/files/u5/Anti-corruptionFINAL.pdf In fact, corporations are the most vulnerable part of this equation, since corruption was top-of-mind business issue for most business executives: two out of five executives have lost a bid because of corrupt officials and also claimed that their competitors pay bribes. [ibidem] So it is their businesses they have to defend, case in which we argue that ensuring compliance to maintain their level of integrity, encouraging enhanced monitoring with the collaboration of stakeholders (among which consumers, local communities are key-factors) and expanding their efforts to influence the demand (lobbying, exposing violations) would better address the core issue. Anti-bribery should become a strategic CSR priority for corporations, not another tool for governments to control the business environment, by creating more harm than actually the root-cause.
The mixture between “dirty” & corrupt governments and “clean” & ethical corporations is simply impossible.(reconstruction)

1.At no point did we support legalizing corruption, but for different countries there are different measures. And indeed, we argued that in more corrupt countries we have good reasons to doubt that prosecutors will do their jobs fairly, as typically judicial systems are also defective.Also, as long as politicians are not being held accountable strictly, there’s no way you can even imagine that you can solve corruption by theoretically adopting yet another law against the private sector. 2. In countries with rampant corruption, bribe has been unofficially legalized because there’s a problem with the demand. As long as there’ll be less people willing to accept bribes (in countries like Denmark or Norway [2] http://bit.ly/cNpOT7), the supply will automatically shrink. 3. Our philosophy is that quantity in anti-bribery measures does not rightly address the corruption problem, but strategy does. When it comes to bribe, we already have a legal framework holding accountable companies for fraud, tax evasion and unfair competitive behavior. What anti-bribery laws try to impose now is a preventive mechanism that the company is responsible for. This basically equals with a preemptive tax each corp has to pay for ensuring that its employees will not be corrupt. This involves email scanning and surveillance which can set a medium company on the verge of bankruptcy, just because it has to be precautious in front of the prosecutors. For instance, the UK Bribery Act considers an offence failing to prevent bribery, so a company becomes liable “unless it can demonstrate that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent the offending conduct.” [3] http://bit.ly/c9Six7 This is surely excessive and vague enough to be totally ineffective . Finally, In those countries where there’s an anti-bribery law on corporations,they would surely preffer cooperation to prosecution, creating more space for inappropriate government interventions, and thus feeding the demand.
Corporate anti-bribery laws protect public health and safety

Public health: we’ve read the articles, but now is the Opp’s duty to argue how many of the pharmaceutical companies were really fined and most of all, how these fines actually proved efficient on the long run. The local and international practices were well known for years worldwide. The US had the FCPA in place long before they decided to show to the public how governments are fighting against corruption. The same governments that are yearly more and more distrusted by their citizens and which strive to win back at least their votes, if not their confidence. Allegedly the most affected sector by these laws is the pharmaceutical one. But think about it: Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical group in the world, disclosed that it paid $35m over six months to 4,500 doctors in private practice for education and the development and marketing of new drugs – payments that are legal in the US [1] http://bit.ly/nKNman Free trips to conferences in Marocco and Bali for doctors where Pfizer promotes its newest drugs which are packaged 5 times more expensive than generic drugs are not considered bribes according to laws worldwide.Once again, the anti-bribery law fails to prevent the core of the issue because of its loopholes. And citizens from developing countries still consume expensive drug which are shamelessly advertised on TV ten times a day. Would the Opp call this protecting public health? Having these examples in mind, the Prop believes that public health is no more protected by anti-brib laws than it already is. Public safety: Let us start with the facts. Bribes aren’t the cause of water pollution in India. Sewage, animal waste, fertilizers, pesticides, mercury and all that are the cause for water pollution. Coca Cola. But bribing is simply a mechanism facilitating the cause to its effect.Similarly, all those companies accused of and convicted for irresponsible behavior have to answer in front of the law for their misbehavior, as environmental laws specify.
Anti-bribery laws lead to increased inequalities and new loopholes

Current laws make bribery harder for corporations. Even if these laws don't block all bribery, that would not justify abolishing the laws, since they still provide very effective prevention and deterrence, as we've shown in our points. Prop seems to lament the lack of effectiveness of the current anti-bribery legislation, believing that bribes still exist, but now in “smarter” guises. To this we have 2 responses: 1.Legislation is not expected to be 100% effective. Society’s laws are equally moral statements of what we do and don't believe to be acceptable ethical practice. Criminals’ ability to ignore laws, to circumvent them or to avoid being caught when they disobey them is no reason to stop legislating against wrongdoing. Just because criminals are getting harder to catch and bribes are becoming more sophisticated, does not mean that we should surrender our legislation to them. 2. We should also bear in mind that corporations, aware of the danger of potential prosecution, are deterred and disincentivized to use bribery, because even if they don’t end up in court, they would like to avoid the enormous hassle and expense of handling an inquiry. This is a strong incentive for corporations to clean up their acts. This also makes bribery not worth it across the board, which refutes the “uncompetitive advantage” argument. Secondly, team Romania seems to think that anti bribery legislation “makes bribes more expensive.” Indeed - high risk, illegal procedures usually have their price. But, clearly making bribery more expensive and more difficult is in no way a bad thing. Thirdly, team Romania seems to be pessimistic about law-abiding companies falling prey to these laws while corrupt companies avoid punishment. Team Israel does not believe this to be the case. Proposition would have to prove that there are enormous failings in global judicial systems to prove that the innocent will be consistently discriminated and the guilty consistently forgiven.
Anti- Bribery Legislation Prevents Anti-Competitive Practice

Corporate world is competitive, but becomes less competitive when inequalities in treatment are prominent. Consider the case of Unilever which pulled out of Bulgaria because the cost of bribes was too high http://bit.ly/p1RmX2 Need we remind you that Bulgaria is one of the countries ratifying the OECD convention against bribery? Furthermore, business monopolies are anyways created and consolidated in developing countries (and not only!) but anti-bribery laws can hardly tackle the issue: in Balkan countries like Bulgaria, Turkey or Greece, partnerships” between companies and public authorities lie on such a complex network of relations, nephews and uncles that bribes as defined by laws and specified at the beginning can hardly be detected. As we’ve shown, over-regulation is not merely an assertion. Anti-bribery laws are excessive and vague because they stimulate fears that lead to increased inequalities between developing and developed countries, they create space for unaccountability where corrupt governments can easily show off with their “success” in fighting against corruption, while quietly waiting for the big “donations” at the next elections and they also pretend companies should be responsible with preventing corruption in their own business environments. If anything, governments are responsible for creating a friendly environment where preventing anti-corruption becomes morally, not legally binding.