BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Celibate priests avoid being torn between God and family

Andrea Lemieux. "Should Roman Catholic Priests Be Allowed to Marry?". Washington Post. November 7, 2004: "Roman Catholic priests should not be allowed to be married. They are to be Christ's earthly representatives, to live as He did, and that cannot be done with a wife in tow. When a priest takes his vows, he consecrates his life completely to God and forsakes all earthly attachments. A man cannot serve two masters, and it would be far too easy to follow a wife's wishes over God's [...] I personally love having a non-married priesthood. I never have to worry about whether I am taking away from a child's time, or a wife's time, if I call up with an emergency."
Priestly celibacy is unnatural

Adrian Ryan. "Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?". Times Online, Comment. October 11, 2005: "Celibacy is an unnatural state. How can a priest be expected to advise on the complexities of a normal marital relationship when he himself is utterly ignorant? It is only natural that a priest would want to marry, have a family and experience the love, affection, and fulfillment that marriage can bring. It is high time that the Church recognised and encouraged it. Adrian Ryan, Ardara, Ireland."
Bible clearly and rationally forbids priests from marrying

Unmarried 1 Corinthians 7:32b–35 NIV: "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."[4]
Other priests can marry, Roman Catholics should be able to

Joseph Snyder. "Should Roman Catholic Priests Be Allowed to Marry?". Washington Post, Letter to the Editor. November 7, 2004: "Eastern Orthodox Catholic priests are allowed to marry. Also, certain married Protestant priests may convert as priests to the Roman Catholic faith. Obviously, the precedent for married Catholic priests is already established. So the question is not 'if' Roman Catholic priests should be married but 'when.'"
Church should maintain tradition of celibacy

R.N. Lentejas Jr. "Debate: Priests should be permitted to marry". Helium: "I believe that priests in the Latin Church should live a celibate life to maintain the rich tradition of the Church. It has been a universal notion from time immemorial until today and until the future that priests are celibates for the sake of the Kingdom of God. This is a universal understanding from across the globe unique to Catholic priests alone, because there are priests in other Christian churches who are actually married. There exists among them (Catholic priests) a universal concept of brotherhood, surpassing the many barriers of race, culture, ethnic origin, economic standing, and many others."
Earmarks are often unrelated to legislation; holds up bill.

Sometimes a good piece of legislation that receives the support of a majority of congressman will be held up and voted down purely on the basis that it contains an egregious, unrelated earmark. This undermines the democratic process, in which ideas are judged and voted on based on their own merits. It also opens the door to unfortunate political maneuvering, in which Congressmen insert unfavorable or controversial earmarks into a piece of legislation as a means of holding up a bill they oppose.
Earmarks have already been significantly reformed

Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007 - "we cut the amount of spending on earmarks in half. In 1994, Congress approved 4,126 earmarks; by 2005, the number increased to 15,877. These reforms should end the abuses we saw in Congress over the past six years. [...] We remain committed to further reforms should they fail to do the job. [...] We pledged to clean up the abuses in the earmark process, and we kept that promise. I’ve been in politics long enough not to wait around for a pat on the back, but our reforms do not deserve a kick in the pants either. To ignore our reforms as if they never occurred and to criticize us for not ending a practice we never pledged to end is disingenuous."
Earmarks are often unrelated to legislation; undemocratic.

Earmarks often have nothing to do with the actual substance of a piece of legislation, relating to something else entirely. This creates many problems. The most important problem is that votes on a piece of legislation may have nothing to do with whether a member of Congress supports a particular earmark found within. This means that earmarks may pass that have virtually no support of congressman and their constituents, virtually detaching the earmarks from the democratic process itself.
Earmarks are susceptible to bribery and corruption

David Heath and Hal Bernton. "$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted". Seattle Times. October 14, 2007 - "Earmarks are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition. This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful. [...] This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful."
Earmarks award funding based on politics not on merit

David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "Within the academic community, the earmarking process could become corrosive. At its logical extreme, faculty would be rewarded more for their role in politics than for developing sound research proposals. Assistant professors would be encouraged to put up lawn signs and distribute campaign literature to enhance their political influence with Members of Congress. Given the importance of fundraising, department heads, deans, and university presidents would be drawn into raising money for congressional races as a way of gaining the ultimate influence. We certainly do not want to go down that road."
Earmarks are part of federalism/power-sharing between nation/states

T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "for the most part, the officials charged with dispensing stimulus dollars will do the best they can with what they have, because they are in fact closer to the people and will catch hell if they don’t do their jobs. That is our system of government: federalism, which divides and shares power between the states and the national government. Amazingly, it still works. It’s not perfect; it never will be. But it lumps along with remarkable resiliency."
Earmarks are more transparent than other spending programs

Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "Reformers who want to ban earmarking might think again. 'You're never going to abolish earmarks,' Moran says. 'What you'll wind up abolishing is the transparency, the accountability.' If unable to earmark, legislators will inveigle executive agencies behind the scenes, fry bureaucrats at hearings, and expand or rewrite entire programs to serve parochial needs. This, of course, is the way things worked in the bad old days. 'I think you'll wind up going back to that system,' Kolbe cautions."
Earmarks foster a culture of spending excesses

David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "unfortunate is the symbolism of earmarking. In an era of large deficits it was easier to resist such spending. We needed discipline to balance the budget. Earmarks could not be afforded. Now with the surplus, we are threatened with an opening of the floodgates. It is hard to convince constituents of the need for restraint and fair play when word of earmarks leaks out."
Earmarks foster a selfish "bring-home-the-pork" mentality

Robert Reich. "House of Ill-Repute: It's Time to Ban Earmarks". Common Dreams. September 12, 2006 - "The conventional view in the House is Americans really don't care about lobbying reform because they take corruption for granted, and it won't especially hurt Republicans (or benefit Democrats) this fall. According to this view, Americans think Congress is rotten to the core except when it comes to their own representative, who they consider a fine, upstanding person. The phenomenon is roughly analogous to what Americans think about education -- the system is terrible except their own schools, which are fairly good."
Earmarks lack transparency and competition

David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "Earmarks are bad because they are obscure and do not face competitive review—except in the backroom politics of the Appropriations, Transportation, or other committees that engage in the process. Earmarks lack peer review and the scrutiny of public hearings. They are not included in the Administration’s budget. Often they originate in only one Chamber. Thus earmarks move below the radar."
Earmarks allow representatives to effectively apply local knowledge

T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "for the most part, the officials charged with dispensing stimulus dollars will do the best they can with what they have, because they are in fact closer to the people and will catch hell if they don’t do their jobs. That is our system of government: federalism, which divides and shares power between the states and the national government. Amazingly, it still works. It’s not perfect; it never will be. But it lumps along with remarkable resiliency."
Earmarks fuel excessive defense spending

"The Problem with Earmarks". Charging RINO. July 19, 2006 - "Some stats: 'The number of earmarks in the annual defense spending bill increased from 587 worth $4.2 billion in fiscal 1994 to 2,506 worth $9 billion in fiscal 2005, according to a recent Congressional Research Service study. There were 231 'plus-ups' - the Navy's term for the money Congress adds for its members' pet projects - totaling nearly $600 million just in the Office of Naval Research budget in fiscal 2005, about a quarter of the total.' [...] This is a problem. And until members of Congress take serious steps to end their addiction to earmaking, it's not a problem that's going away."
Opponents of earmarks unjustifiably bash government

T.M. Sell. "A few kind words for earmarks". Cross Cut. February 9, 2009 - "The complaining about lack of congressional oversight in the stimulus package underscores the absurdity of the post-modern America polity: We brag about our freedom, democracy, and superior form of government, and yet relatively few Americans have any faith in it [including earmarks] or understand how it works. (And if we’re the greatest nation on earth, why do we have to keep telling everybody?)"
Earmark spending is more targeted and effective

Jonathan Rauch. "Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - "Competition for funding, combined with flexibility and local knowledge, makes earmarks 'often some of the best expenditures the federal government makes in a particular area,' Lilly says. 'I would say, on the whole, earmarks probably provide as much value-added as non-earmarked federal spending.'"
Earmarks create unsustainable institutional dependencies

David Minge, former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "The Case Against Academic Earmarking" - "if institutions rely on earmarking, they face the vagaries of the political process in a much more capricious way. They risk the loss of their political patron. Members of Congress and the Senate move on. Those institutions that depend on a 'sugar daddy' may face a period of drought when their patron leaves. Recently Senator John Kerry (D-NE) said that the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired. Indeed, his decision was a sad moment for faculty and staff at that institution."
Earmarks need not benefit all equally to be justified.

There is no reason why earmarks must benefit all citizens equally, even if they do roughly achieve this objective in the long-run. Some citizens and communities have greater needs than others, even - sometimes - in the long-run. It would not be inherently unjust for a community that suffers from coastal erosion and flooding, for example, to receive more earmarked dollars than another community in the long-run.
One person's "pork spending" is another's valuable project

Eugene Elander. "So, what's wrong with earmarks?". Op Ed News. March 10, 2009 - "One person's earmark is another's vitally needed infrastructure project." Many call all earmarks that do not benefit them "wasteful", while accepting earmark funding for their own local needs as "necessary". "Waste" and "necessity" are in the eyes of the beholder. Because most earmarks do not benefit any given citizen, citizens often view nearly all earmarks as "wasteful".
Earmarks are not inherently bad; some are good, some bad

Rahm Emanuel. "Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks". New York Times. August 24, 2007 - "Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal. For six years, some members of Congress provided secret earmarks for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, foreign trips and, in some cases, outright bribes. The core of the problem was that the earmarks were hidden from the press and the public. There was no opportunity to review either their sponsorship or their merit before their passage."
Opponents of earmarks hypocritically engage in practice

Eugene Elander. "So, what's wrong with earmarks?". Op Ed News. March 10, 2009 - "One of the ironies in the anti-earmark position is that often its strongest advocates are among the first to demand funds for projects in their own Congressional districts. Tabulations of earmarks in recent legislation show little difference between the amounts of funds asked by anti-earmark and pro-earmark legislators. As the Chinese say, empty rice barrels make the most noise. We seem to have a lot of those barrels in Congress."
Wave energy will become viable with greater economies of scales.

Hwee Hwee Tan. "Riding on the next wave of promise". Energy Current. 1 Mar. 2008 - "Because the industry is new, there are no economies of scale, which means that all units [of wave energy devices] must be individually produced at higher costs," Elefant said. The cost of wave energy will remain on the high side as compared to competing forms of renewables until enough projects are developed to reach economies of scale, according to Elefant."
Wave power generators obstruct and are a hazard to fishers.

William Yardley. "Efforts to Harvest Ocean’s Energy Open New Debate Front". New York Times. December 8, 2007 - "'I don’t want it in my fishing grounds,' said Mr. Martinson, 40, who docks his 74-foot boat, Libra, here at Yaquina Bay, about 90 miles southwest of Portland. 'I don’t want to be worried about driving around someone else’s million-dollar buoy.'"
Wave power diminishes wave quality for surfers

"Surfers protest British wave power plan". International Herald Tribune. 5 Apr. 2007 - "A political fight is looming over one of the first British wave power projects, the Wave Hub, which surfers fear will drain energy from the waves they ride along the Atlantic coast. Initial reports suggest that wave heights could be cut by up to 11 percent in the most affected area, Chapelporth, a renowned surfing beach backed by rugged granite cliffs and the ruins of discarded tin mines. 'We will not stand by and not fight this,' said Ben Farwagi of the London Surf Club, a regular visitor to the region. 'Imagine the uproar if golf courses were required to close two holes each in order to accommodate wind farms,' Baxendale said."
Oceans corrode wave power systems, which is costly.

Ocean Power on the Rise". Celcias. - "Waves are not short on power. In fact, the sheer potency of the ocean is a serious issue for engineers. How do you build something that can withstand the constant wear and tear of the enormous weight of ocean surges? And, once you have that figured, add in extra fortification for stormy conditions, and top it off with protection against the incredibly corrosive effects of salt."
Wave power is young, years behind other renewables

"The coming wave". Economist. Jun 5th 2008 - "Alas, harnessing it has proved to be unexpectedly difficult. In recent years wind farms have sprouted on plains and hilltops, and solar panels have been sprinkled across rooftops and deserts. But where the technology of wind and solar power is established and steadily improving, that of wave power is still in its infancy. The world had to wait until October 2007 for the first commercial wave farm, consisting of three snakelike tubes undulating with the Atlantic swell off the coast of Portugal."
Internet access is comparable to other modern rights

Marshall Kirkpatrick. "Is Internet Access a Fundamental Human Right? ReadWriteWeb. June 11, 2009: "Here's a prediction: in five years, a UN convention will enshrine network access as a human right (preemptive strike against naysayers: 'Human rights' aren't only water, food and shelter, they include such 'nonessentials' as free speech, education, and privacy). In ten years, we won't understand how anyone thought it wasn't a human right."
Other taxpayers must pay for right to Internet

Matt Asay. "Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?" CNET. May 6th, 2009: "After all, let's be honest: if the government assumes Internet access as a fundamental right, it ultimately is granting itself the fundamental right to tax its citizens to pay for it. I don't feel any burning desire to pay for your "right" to download silly YouTube videos, porn, or even to read this blog, which is what people would do 99.999 percent of the time with their Internet access. None of these is fundamental to freedom or to a happy, fulfilling life (except maybe that last one ;-)."
If Internet access is a right, so would be news

Matt Asay. "Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?" CNET. May 6th, 2009: "Following this line of reasoning, shouldn't I have a right to cable TV, since that's where I watch C-SPAN and other government-related activity? If that's how the government chooses to communicate with me, the citizen, I darn well better get full access! [...] Or how about a right to get The Wall Street Journal? It provides useful commentary on my government's actions and how they affect my wallet. But then, I'd also need The New York Times so that I could develop a balanced view on important political matters. None of which will matter if the government doesn't force upon me the right to education! And not just any education, but an education that makes me fully capable of making intelligent voting decisions and filling out endless forms. See the problem?"
Rights are things govts can't take, not things they must give

Matt Asay. "Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?" CNET. May 6th, 2009: "The Western world is big on rights these days, and seems to forget its responsibilities. Indeed, the interesting thing about the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that they mostly involve keeping government out of the lives of citizens, whereas these new government-granted rights do the opposite: they beg government to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation."
Making Internet a right only benefits society

"The internet as a right." The Guardian. October 24th, 2008: "The internet is a right. [...] It’s in their enlightened self-interest. And I will suggest that the WEF Global Agenda Council should catalogue, quantify, and demonstrate that self-interest in terms of the benefit the internet brings a nation in: 1. business – jobs created, efficiencies found, innovation sparked, entrepreneurism supported; 2. education – every human able to search all our digital knowledge, distributed university curricula, the growth of the aggregated education, the pull toward literacy; 3. politics – the ability of citizens to coalesce and act, the increase in involvement in politics, the greater transparency enabled (which some politicians will not think is in their self-interest – but that is precisely why we will want this creed to separate democrats from dictators and the corrupt); 4. government – we have only begun to use connectivity to improve governance in its relationships with constituents and in efficiencies; 4. society – I argue in my book that staying connected may change the nature of relationships for the good – one-to-one and nation-to-nation."
Internet access is a responsibility not a right

Matt Asay. "Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?" CNET. May 6th, 2009: "I'd therefore turn this discussion on its head, and suggest to Reding and the European Commission: we may choose to shoulder the responsibility for delivering Internet access to Europe and the rest of the world, but let's term it as a 'fundamental responsibility,' and not as a 'fundamental right.'"
Internet access is essential now; must be a right

Cory Doctorow. "Warning to all copyright enforcers: Three strikes and you're out." Guardian.co.uk. July 1, 2008: "I mean, it's not as though internet access is something important right? [...] The internet is only that wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in a single connection. [...] It's only vital to the livelihood, social lives, health, civic engagement, education and leisure of hundreds of millions of people (and growing every day)."
Just another problem created

If the internet is a right, not only making it a right would be hard, providing internet access is downright impossible. For example, South Korea is the most internetly connected country in the world, but we only achieved this because of our country's size (which is big as Indiana). What about poor Africans, or people living in the jungles of the Amazon? What about Chinese people whose internet access is blocked by its government? North Korea, Iran, other countries where internet access is restricted? With today's unsolvable problems like drugs, there's no need to create another one.
Internet not as important as real rights

Luke Appleby. "The internet is not a right." Stuff.co.nz. March 9th, 2010: "In 20 years, will people think having a cell-phone is a human right? An iPhone? A cooked breakfast and a footrub? [...] We may think of such trivial things as a fundamental right, but consider the truly impoverished and what is most important to them. The right to vote, the right to liberty and freedom from slavery or the right to elementary education. [...] Perhaps it's time for a reality check, and to re-examine which of our 'rights' are truly important."
Internet is a luxury, not a right

Robert Lockard. "Internet access a human right?" Eharbor Commerce. October 21, 2009: "Apparently, it’s not an unalienable right to own a car or a house, but somehow it is an essential right for every person to be connected to the Internet. To me, that is faulty logic. We can all work hard to gain access to new tools, like cars, cell phones or the Internet, to make our lives easier, but there is no guarantee we’ll get those things without effort."
If the internet is a right, then drugs should be a right

Sure, the internet is growing daily and became commonplace. However, just because something is a huge part in many people's lives, does it mean that those things should be regarded as rights? Cell phones for example. Should they become a right. If the internet is a right, then cell phones should be rights because they are more common. Other examples, like cars, or even drugs. Drugs and cars are a huge part of people lives. Just because they're widespread and is used extensively, doesn't mean that they should be rights.