BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women don't need ultrasound to know implications of abortion.

"Ultrasound before abortion: A wasteful bullying tactic." RH Reality Check. February 11th, 2011: "I think we can be pretty sure that a woman about to have an abortion is aware of what’s inside her womb. And in case she’s not, the doctors who counsel her before the abortion are perfectly capable of telling her. By adding another step, Fulton and the other lawmakers championing these bills are implying that they have some insight to offer in the medical process. By requiring that a woman go through an additional medical procedure solely for the purpose of telling her what she already knows – that she’s pregnant – these bills are wasteful and offensive to medical providers."[1]
Doctor-patient relationship sometimes needs ethical boundaries.

Doctors and patients sometimes need boundaries, just like the free market. A good example might be the assisted suicide laws in some US states like Oregon, in which a panel of ethicists as well as doctors must assess the legitimacy of a patient's request for the procedure and the termination of their own life. This is a government imposed process between the doctor and the patient due to the ethical sensitivity of the issue. The same justification can be put forward for mandating ultrasounds before abortions - it's a minimum step to ensure that the doctor and patient are operating with a basic understanding of the unborn life that they are taking.
Ultrasounds can be reassuring to some women.

Kevin Sack. "In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front." New York Times. May 27th, 2010: "Because human features may barely be detectable during much of the first trimester, when 9 of 10 abortions are performed, some women find viewing the images reassuring. 'It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,' said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. 'It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.'" This may run against the wishes of some pro-life advocates who intend for ultrasounds to discourage abortions, but it also can be offered as a sign that mandating ultrasounds need not be seen as a form of punishment; it's effect is not clearly negative of the psyche of the patient. Indeed, in this sense, it can be viewed as a neutral piece of information for the patient, whom can interpret it as they see fit in making their choice to have an abortion or not.
Nothing wrong with persuading women against abortion.

Zack Krajacic. "Serious about reducing abortion? Make women see an ultrasound of the procedure." Christian Science Monitor. January 7th, 2010: "Some might object to a law that could produce such a strong influence, but abortion providers and organizations like Planned Parenthood, who profit from performing abortions, exert their own influence right now in the opposite direction. In other words, the abortion decision in its current state is not a pure one – it is tainted with various motives. Is it not better to influence women to refrain from having an abortion than to persuade them to have one? Indeed, a lower abortion rate resulting from the free and voluntary choices of well-informed women should be welcome news to everybody. After all, even the most ardent pro-choice advocates, including President Obama, insist that nobody is for abortion and that everyone wants to reduce the number of abortions. Naomi Wolf, a feminist author and supporter of abortion rights, described abortion in a 1995 essay as a 'necessary evil.' As a guest on Fox News’s 'Hannity' last fall, Steve Murphy, a Democratic strategist, said he and other pro-choice advocates are morally opposed to abortion, but they feel it is important to ensure it remains a woman’s choice. In fact, every pro-choice advocate I have ever come across has stressed that they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion."
Ultrasounds are good compromise between abortion opponents

Zack Krajacic. "Serious about reducing abortion? Make women see an ultrasound of the procedure." Christian Science Monitor. January 7th, 2010: "Since pro-choice advocates want to reduce the number of abortions as long as a woman’s right to choose remains intact, they should support a law that required women to watch a video of an abortion. [...] On the other hand, this proposal would not completely meet the objectives of the pro-life side, because abortion would still be legal. But pro-life advocates would be pleased that women are in a better position to make a decision that will affect the rest of their lives and their babies’ lives. They would also be happy about the dramatic drop in the number of abortions that would probably occur as a result of women having more information about abortion and its long-term consequences.
Ultrasounds don't convince women against abortion.

Ferretlas. "Laws that mandate ultrasounds prior to abortions don't work." Daily Kos. May 28th, 2010: "According to a NYT article a new study outside the US has come to the conclusion that laws forcing women to have ultrasounds before having an abortion do not change the women's mind! What intrigues me is that these invasive laws are not changing women's minds, they are, in some instances, reassuring the woman that what she's doing is the RIGHT thing for her. I suspect this is the exact opposite effect the anti-choicers had in mind. So, once further studies, preferably one done here in America, confirm or deny these findings, will the states that have these laws on their books take another look at them? I suspect, like abstinence only, which HAS been proven ineffective, these laws mandating medically unnecessary ultrasounds will continue to add to a woman's burden if she is considering having an abortion."
Mandating doctors inform women of ultrasounds is enough.

"Our view on women's choice: Ultrasound mandates in abortions cross a line." USA Today Editorial. May 9th, 2010: "Oklahoma law already requires that women considering abortion be told about ultrasounds (a sensible requirement), and no one has explained why more is needed." This requirement ensures that women are offered the choice to opt for the procedure and view the fetus before the abortion. It appropriately puts the choice to access information in the hands of the woman seeking an abortion, instead of somehow attempting to mandate the absorption of that information.
Ultrasounds forced on women who already chose abortion.

"Ultrasound before abortion: A wasteful bullying tactic." RH Reality Check. February 11th, 2011: "This bill hits women in the doctor’s office, after they’ve already decided to have an abortion. They have taken stock of their lives, their social, emotional, and economic 'circumstances,' and they’ve decided that abortion is the best option for them. Having an ultrasound and hearing a description of the fetus does not change these circumstances. It does nothing to make the pregnancy easier to bear[...]"
Mandatory ultrasounds force doctors to compromise practice.

Emily Bazelon. "Required viewing: Oklahoma's gallingly paternalistic ultrasound law." Slate. October 22th, 2008: "[With the 2008 Oklahoma law,] doctors would be stuck practicing medicine in a way that doesn't make sense to them. [...] the Oklahoma abortion law is like a South Dakota statute that requires doctors to give patients who come for an abortion a mandatory written statement telling them that an abortion includes 'increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide,' even though there's no good evidence of such a risk. Both laws leave doctors with an ethical quandary. They can either risk criminal prosecution by breaking the law or follow it and either (in Oklahoma) do an ultrasound against a patient's will or (in South Dakota) read a state-mandated script for which there's no solid medical backing."
Legislators arrogant thinking they can change women's mind.

"Ultrasound before abortion: A wasteful bullying tactic." RH Reality Check. February 11th, 2011: "The legislators behind these bills are arrogant in assuming they have something to say to a woman about her “womb.” There’s no doubt that, as a woman, it’s hard to predict how you’ll feel after an abortion. But an image of the fetus sheds no light on the decision and adds nothing to the emotional process."
Even coal-powered electric cars pollute less than gasoline cars.

"Coal Into Cars: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly". Plugs and Cars 19 Aug. 2007 - "About half our electricity comes from coal, and that will change, at best, slowly as we move to renewables. But we need to keep in mind that when we're talking about cars, even coal-generated electricity results in lower greenhouse gas emissions compared with petroleum. The EPRI-NRDC Plug-in Hybrid Study makes clear that under every scenario studied, every region will yield reductions in greenhouse gases as we increase the number of plug-in cars. That includes the worst, most coal dependent areas."
Electric cars can be combined with regenerative braking.

Regenerative braking systems generate and store electricity from the action of braking a car. Instead of break pads slowing a vehicle and converting the lost energy into kinetic heat energy, regenerative braking systems slow the car via a generator that converts momentum into electricity. This electricity can help re-charge the battery of an electric vehicle. These systems increase the energy efficiency of electric cars, which is very important to lowering emissions and fighting global warming.
Electric cars will have a negligible impact on emissions.

"Electric Car Sparks Debate". National Center for Policy Analysis. 2000 - "The electric car is no solution to smog in California's cities, according to a new report published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. The study by Carnegie-Mellon University economist Lester Lave and three engineers attempted to assess the probable impact of 500,000 electric cars on the air quality of Los Angeles and New York City.
Electric cars are too expensive to be viable

Vinod Khosla, a well-known venture capitalist and one of the most prolific investors in green technologies, said in 2007, "Are electric cars going to make a difference any time soon? No. Are they going to be material? No. If something costs $2,000 more, nobody buys it. It’s not going to be reach the average person in Mississippi. That’s what I call my Mississippi test."[3]
Electric cars can slash greenhouse gas emissions.

A July 2007 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) concludes that, by 2050, broad acceptance of PHEVs could cut up to 6.12 billion tons of greenhouse gases each year—approximately 2.5 times the amount currently emitted by power plants. The study concluded that it is possible for 42 percent of the total U.S. auto fleet to be PHEVs by 2030—and nearly doubles that by 2050.[1]
Electric cars are uneconomical; can't impact global warming

Vinod Khosla, a well-known venture capitalist and one of the most prolific investors in green technologies, said in 2007, "Are electric cars going to make a difference any time soon? No. Are they going to be material? No. If something costs $2,000 more, nobody buys it. It’s not going to be reach the average person in Mississippi. That’s what I call my Mississippi test."[2]
Online interactions are used to groom sexual victims.

Charol Shakeshaft, professor and chairwoman of the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University: "A lot of the grooming of students for sexual abuse is now happening over the Internet," Shakeshaft said, noting that in the 50 court cases she has been consulted on involving students being sexually abused by school employees, every one of them involved communication by email, IM, text or a social network.[9]
Teacher-student "friendships" just expose unwanted info

Josh Wolford at WebProNews: "Let's be honest, social media is a liability. Maintaining a respectable image is incredibly important as a teacher,' and doing so on Facebook can be a challenge. Even when sexual misconduct isn't an issue, 'does a teacher really want Tuesday morning's classroom discussion to be dominated by Monday night's relationship status change from 'engaged' to 'single'?' Why let students know, even inadvertently, that she graded their papers while battling a grueling hangover? On the flip side, do students really want their teacher to know what they were doing all weekend when they were supposed to be studying? I think not."[4]
Exclusive teacher-student communications have edu value

"Missouri 'Facebook Law' Limits Teacher-Student Interactions Online, Draws Criticism And Praise." Huffington Post. August 3rd, 2011: "critics argue that a student struggling with 'Hamlet,' for instance, misses a learning opportunity when he or she sees a teacher on IM and can't send a message. Or a student who is too shy to raise his hand in class might prefer to email his teacher, but might not feel comfortable knowing his parents or a member of the administration might be reading the email as well."
Damaging to force teachers to "unfriend" students.

Many teachers have student friends. Creating a law that prevents their private interactions forces teachers to "unfriend" these students, an action which entails its own set of costs, harm, and regret between both the teacher and student. It would likely confuse children, sending the message that they were doing something wrong even though they were not (the vast majority of exclusive interactions are appropriate). This can be unnecessarily confusing and distressing for students and teachers.
Facebook law assumes worse about teachers

Christine Greenhow, an assistant professor at the College of Education and the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland: "It seems to assume the worst about teachers, that teachers are sexual predators. Amy Mascott, a mother of three and former teacher who started Teach Mama, a blog focusing on education, said: "I feel it immediately colors the teacher-student relationship in a negative way, assuming that all teachers are going to act inappropriately with students."[5]
Facebook law will hardly impact online/sexual abuse

Casey Chan. "Missouri Has Banned Teachers from Being Facebook Friends with Students." Gizmodo. August 1, 2011: "It's supposed to protect anything illicit from ever happening because, uh duh, all those improper statutor-ish relationships begin on Facebook. It's an incubator for rape! It's hell on the internet! Come on. It's pretty silly to think that blocking student and teacher "Facebook friendships" could ever stop this from happening when the weirdos and creepers who get into these nasty messes STILL SEE EACH OTHER IRL EVERYDAY."
Schools not state should regulate teacher-student "friendships."

It should be left up to schools to set the boundaries for social media. Some schools may need to emphasize teacher-student mentoring in and out of the classroom, for example, and find it important to allow Facebook "friendships" and private communications. And, by making it a school instead of state responsibility, there is less risk of running into first amendment and freedom of association issues; if a student, teacher, or parent doesn't like a policy, they can simply leave (whereas a state law is more binding).
"Facebook law" widens gap b/w student lives inside/outside school

"Missouri 'Facebook Law' Limits Teacher-Student Interactions Online, Draws Criticism And Praise." Huffington Post. August 3rd, 2011: "'The number one technology that students use outside school is social networking sites,' said Christine Greenhow, an assistant professor at the College of Education and the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland. 'This is the technology they're going to as their one-stop shop for communication. It's their email, their bulletin board, their online photo album, it's where they do their writing.' For that reason, Greenhow, whose area of expertise is learning in social media contexts, argued that limiting communication between teachers and students only furthers the gap between a student's in-school life and his or her life outside of school."
Exclusive teacher-student relationships are inappropriate.

Charol Shakeshaft, professor and chairwoman of the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University: "Exclusive and private contact with your students isn't educationally necessary. In the same way that in a school we would say, 'No, you may not lock yourself into a room with a student,' this law effectively says, 'No you may not lock yourself into a website where only you can get to the student.' [...] Anything I need to do as a teacher I can do in a public space or a space that can be accessed by people. If I need to be doing it completely in private, then I shouldn't be doing it."[7]
Online relationships let students in need reach out.

Laws against teacher-student online "friendships" very well could prevent some students "from confiding in a trusted adult friend who might be able to help them get through serious problems," says Randy Turner, a Missouri middle school teacher, as quoted at PC Mag. "For Joplin students, that could be dealing with the aftermath of losing their homes and having their lives uprooted on May 22. For others, it may be confiding in just the kind of horrific crime that the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act is supposedly designed to eliminate."[11]
The teacher is not a "friend," but an authority figure

"Editorial - Facebook not appropriate for students, teachers, but alternatives possible." Star News Online. August 5th, 2011: "Teachers should not agree to join a student’s list of Facebook friends, engage in texting or other electronic communication that could cast suspicion on the teacher-student relationship. There are boundaries that must not be crossed. The teacher is not a pal, but an authority figure and a mentor who must keep a respectful emotional and social distance."
Banning teacher-student "friendships" responds to real abuse

While some think that the Facebook law unfairly puts teachers in a negative light, parents are not being irrational in worrying about a teacher potentially taking advantage of students. A 2004 report for the Department of Education found that 10 percent of public school children have been victims of sexual harassment or abuse. A 2007 Associated Press study found that there were 2,500 allegations of sexual misconduct by teachers, school psychologists, administrators and other school employees across 50 states over five years.[8]
There's a desk b/w teachers and students for a reason.

"Editorial - Facebook not appropriate for students, teachers, but alternatives possible." Star News Online. August 5th, 2011: "Chairman Don Hayes summed it up well, noting that there is a desk between teacher and student. We have seen what happens when teachers or other school employees push that desk out of the way, from suggestive text messages to full-blown sexual affairs. Sometimes what should go without saying still needs to be said."
Western cartoonists should not be held to a double standard

Daniel Pipes argues that the pattern of events surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons shows Muslim hypocrisy and supremacism: "...will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones... .... .... The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism."[9]
The Jylands-Posten cartoons created an international impression of Denmark as Xenophobic.

Whether or not one believes that the cartoons were appropriate, the truth is that it stimulated an international impression of the Danish people as a xenophobic and potentially hateful. Or, at least, is has created an impression of the Danish people as the instigators of the international upheaval that resulted from the publishing of these cartoons; upheaval in which nearly 100 people died. Regardless of the justifications, that Denmark and its people are seen as the instigators of this all reflects poorly on them. The Denmark based 'Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network' said "the cartoons among others things identified Islam with terrorism, (this) can only increase the xenophobia and racism that these populations are already victims of in Europe. Furthermore, this kind of image contributes to discrediting entire countries and their populations."
The Muslim world has presented an image of itself that is partly to blame for the Muhammad cartoons.

In Iraq, the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. Al-Sistani suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.[3] In the United Arab Emirates, the periodical Al-Ittihad published an opinion piece which argued that, "The world has come to believe that Islam is what is practiced by Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, and others who have presented a distorted image of Islam. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are the reason for these drawings."[4]
The Quran does not explicitly prohibit images of Muhammad.

It prohibts idolatry, but not explicitly visual representations of Muhammad. It reads, "Behold! he said to his father and his people, 'What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?' They said, 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said, 'Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers.' sura 21, 52-54)." Muhammad is criticizing Muslims for worshiping an image. But, he does not explicitly criticize the image itself. It should noted that the Dutch cartoons that were created were images that were made outside of the context of worship, and could not be misconstrued as engendering idolatry.
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons stimulate debate and understanding.

Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of these cartoon images so that individual Muslims can make up their own minds and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised. This debate raises important and valuable questions about what is appropriate and what is not in a Western democracy today. It raises positive questions about how we can, as Muslims and people of other faiths, get along at a higher level.
The "Bomb in Turban" addresses parts of Islam that inspire terrorism

There are elements of Islam and the Quran that do inspire violent acts and that are used by terrorists as fuel for their acts. The "Bomb in Turban" cartoon was meant by its author as a representation of the elements of Islam and the Quran that act in this way to inspire terrorism. While this is not meant to indict Islam in general. Rather, it is simply meant to highlight the parts of the Quran and Islam that do give fuel to terrorists.
A tolerant double standard is being applied to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.

If images had been published in the Middle East of Jesus with a bomb on his head, it would be seen as xenophobic. And, yet, images of Muhammad with a bomb on his head that are published in Denmark are seen as expressions of free speech. Mohammed al-Shaibani wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily on January 30 2006 - "In [the West] it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims. But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."
The cartoons were an exercise in hate, rather than free, speech.

Louay M. Safi, scholar and Muslim American leaders argued that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons were an exercise in hate, rather than free, speech. Dr. Safi accused Jyllands-Poten editors of hidding behind free speech to promote anti Muslim feelings and demonize the small but growoing Danish Muslim community. He distinguished between free speech that aims at engaging an important issue, and hate speech whose goal is to marginalize and intimate, and argued that Jyllands-Posten was evidently guilty of the latter.