BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ban will give powers to police to crack down on the murky underworld of forced marriages

Unless the unwilling bride or groom is dragged kicking and screaming to the registry office there is no black and white distinction between a forced marriage and a consensual one. There may be some physical/financial coercion going on in the shadows but it is empirically impossible to decide whether this constitutes as forcing someone into marriage unless there is literally a shotgun wedding situation afoot and there are laws to deal with that already. Even if the police found a document detailing how the family would pay the couple to marry one another the couple still have consent despite that decision being complete with attractive incentives. Any physical coercion or threats can be dealt with separately as we have laws for that sort of nonsense already. No new laws are necessary. It would really be a waste of our time to make any such law and nobody wants a dummy law that does nothing to solve the problem it was intended to solve and could only potentially create new ones by the single fact that it is a law and there are people who love to find loopholes out there.
Companies and elected officials should take special care not to push a single religious message on p...

There is nothing wrong with sending Christian greeting to people of other cultures. Very few will be offended by it, and some will send back, e.g. “Happy Hanukkah” or “Happy Kwanza” cards of their own. Most religious groups appreciate the importance of faith in society and are happy to welcome the good wishes of others in the spirit in which they were meant. Many see the real problems in society as secularism and materialism, which aim to marginalize religious faiths of all kinds.
The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend tax...

Western countries are Christian societies, shaped over centuries by the Church. Some, such as the UK, still have an official state church and many others (e.g. Germany, France) support churches with money in some ways. In all Christmas Day is a public holiday. Even in the USA many people would argue that the courts have shut religion out of public life in a way that the Founding Fathers never intended. Such Christian countries should not turn their back upon their heritage and the faith background of the large majority of their citizens. This means Christmas (and other Christian festivals, such as Easter) should continue to be marked officially with public displays. The state can also mark other faith holidays in some way, but it is right that Christmas gets most official attention.
The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend tax...

The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend taxpayer’s money on celebrating the birth of a man many do not believe was the Son of God. This secularism is an important part of both the French and American constitutions, which provide an example other countries should follow. If they are to treat all their citizens equally, governments must either avoid recognising any religious faith, or they must celebrate all the beliefs held in their area.
Our duty to respect the beliefs of others means “Happy Holidays” is a much more appropriate greeting...

Greetings such as “Happy Holidays” fuse all religious festivals into one meaningless mush. Treating the festivals of other cultures as “their version of Christmas” corrupts and belittles them by ignoring their own unique character – e.g. Hanukkah is a relatively minor Jewish festival. Diwali, Eid, Ashura, etc are not fixed in December, but move according to different calendars. Kwanza is an African-American cultural celebration, not a religious festival.
Our duty to respect the beliefs of others means “Happy Holidays” is a much more appropriate greeting...

Our duty to respect the beliefs of others means “Happy Holidays” is a much more appropriate greeting. Most religious historians recognise that Jesus was probably born in the spring, not on 25th December. Back in Roman times the Christian Church took over a pagan mid-winter festival in order to promote its own ideas. This religious land-grab continues today, as the dominance of Christmas overshadows the mid-winter festivals of other faiths and cultures, e.g. Hanukkah, Kwanza, sometimes Diwali, Eid, Ashura, etc.
Big organisations such as governments, local authorities or companies should not send cards wishing ...

Big organisations such as governments, local authorities or companies should not send cards wishing people “A Happy Christmas”. Even if those who get the cards are pleased to have them, it is wrong to send cards that assume all of their employees have a Christian faith and wish to share it. Similarly, in a school the demand that staff put on a nativity play may upset teachers who do not have a Christian faith.
To members of ethnic minority groups public celebrations of Christmas can seem like a form of aggres...

Trying to ban references to Christmas is actually bad for society. There are almost no examples of members of ethnic community groups lobbying to ban public Christmas displays. Where this has happened it has usually been demanded by radical atheists or politically-correct do-gooders. Leaders of minority faith groups have often opposed such efforts, partly because they feel it is an attack on all religions, not just Christianity (see argument 2 above). They also know that if Christmas celebrations are banned, minority faith groups will be blamed and community relations will suffer.
In today’s multi-cultural societies, there are many Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, etc. Christmas...

Christmas is now largely separate from Christianity. For most westerners, Santa Claus/Father Christmas is a more important part of the festival than Jesus. In many western countries only a minority of people will go to Church on Christmas Day, or think much about the religious message. That doesn’t stop them enjoying the festival as an important time with family and friends at a cold and gloomy time of year. And because Christmas has lost its religious nature, many families from non-Christian faith backgrounds will still celebrate it in some way. For this reason it is fine for people of all faiths and none to wish each other “Happy Christmas”, and for the holiday to be publicly celebrated.
In today’s multi-cultural societies, there are many Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, etc. Christmas...

In today’s multi-cultural societies, there are many Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, etc. Christmas has no religious meaning for people who do not share a Christian background and they will not celebrate 25th December as a special day. It is offensive to such groups to force a Christian festival on them, either through public displays such as school nativities or outdoor crib scenes, or by personal greetings that encourage them to join in the celebration of Jesus’ birth. We should be more sensitive to the feelings of those around us and keep any Christian celebration for family and church.
We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo...

We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbon being released into the air. Unless ordinary people can be brought to change their behaviour we will never tackle climate change. So it is fair to use market methods that raise the price of energy to encourage us to change our behaviour. Ways can be found to make sure that no one suffers under this new system. For example, other taxes can be cut to make up for having to pay a carbon tax. And even if emissions were tackled by regulation instead, that would still have the effect of raising the cost of energy and fuel. Producers would pass the increased costs of regulation on to consumers, so we will have to pay more one way or another.
Market systems are easy to understand and run efficiently because everyone acts out of self-interest...

Market systems are easy to understand and run efficiently because everyone acts out of self-interest. Regulation means government control and that means plenty of bureaucracy and red tape. A huge, complicated and costly system will be created to manage any new emission rules and standards. Not only will this probably raise taxes, it will also hurt the economy as business will struggle to cope with the regulations. And because governments are so bad at regulation, the chances are that the system will fail to cut emissions much. Companies may cheat on the rules, thinking rightly that they are unlikely to get caught. Even if they are, any fines will probably be smaller than the cost of obeying the regulations.
In the past there was no cost for polluting the atmosphere because although everyone needs air, no o...

We already have regulations to cut carbon emissions so we don’t need market methods. After all, businesses’ greed for profits has led them to pour pollution into our air so they are unlikely to stop unless the government makes them. There are good examples of successful regulation. California and European governments have both set standards for fuel efficiency and exhaust levels to successfully reduce vehicles’ impact on the environment. There are also plans to ban the sale of ordinary light bulbs so that people have to switch to low-energy ones instead. We should aim to expand and tighten up these existing regulations rather than take a gamble on something untested.
The market will work better at a global level. Usually each country sets its own regulations and so...

Using the market sounds good in theory but there are too many problems for it to work in practice. There are lots of different types of carbon emissions, and some do much more damage to the climate than others. Allowing for these differences in a market system is hard, but regulations can be more flexible, targeting the worst types of emissions with tougher rules. Also, some important countries like China and India release a lot of carbon into the air but their economies are not as open as those of most western countries. This means a market system wouldn’t work equally across the world. Unless we put off dealing with climate change until all economies work the same way, regulation is the only means to make an immediate difference.
Using the market will persuade people to choose greener ways of living which put less carbon into th...

Economists love the idea of market mechanisms but they don’t understand ordinary people. Consumers are actually not very sensitive to energy price rises. If the energy prices go up, they will still need to cook, and to light and heat their homes. So they will grumble but pay more rather than cutting the amount of energy they use. In the same way, if they need the car to go to work, or take children to school, they will not drive any less if fuel costs more. Instead they will cut back on other things, like holidays, clothes or going out. Poor people with no spare money will end up suffering more than the rich do, whereas regulations will make everyone contribute to reducing emissions. And it might make sense to spend money making your house energy efficient, or to buy a more expensive but greener car. However, the up-front cost of doing these things is too much for most people to afford, even if they might get it back in lower costs many years later. If governments want to get people to change their behaviour, they will have to change the law to make them do so.
Market solutions can take advantage of the fact that it does not cost the same amount everywhere to ...

Regulations are the best way to make every country play its part in tackling climate change. Rich countries are the ones which have pumped the most carbon into the atmosphere, but market mechanisms will allow them to avoid their moral duty to change the most. A carbon market would mean they can buy a permit to emit carbon from a poorer country rather than change their own ways. In exchange the developing country doesn’t even need to actually reduce its own carbon output – it can just promise not to increase it as much as it might have done. Given the weak government and corruption in some developing countries, many people wonder how much some of these promises are worth.
The European trading systems has run into problems, but this is mostly because politicians interfere...

Regulations are more reliable than trying to put a price on carbon emissions. The European carbon trading system has not worked well. The price for permits to release carbon into the air has jumped up and down unpredictably, before settling at such a low level it is unlikely to have any impact on companies’ behaviour. Regulations are a better way of ensuring change takes place as business will know for certain what action it has to take. This will allow companies to plan properly and will encourage research and development in green technologies.
We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo...

Trying to put a price on carbon unfairly punishes ordinary families. Making quite poor people pay more to heat their homes, cook meals, drive their vehicles, etc will push many of them into poverty. We already pay high taxes and this is just another way politicians have found to get their hands in our wallets. By contrast, big business makes plenty of profits and can afford to spend some of them meeting new emissions regulations.
Market systems are easy to understand and run efficiently because everyone acts out of self-interest...

Regulations are the best way to cut carbon emissions because unlike market methods they can be introduced with public support. Opinion polls show that people understand and back regulations like fuel efficiency rules, home energy standards, etc. By contrast, carbon taxes are very unpopular because people do not trust the politicians who wish to introduce them. Cap and trade systems are so difficult to explain to ordinary consumers that the public will not back them. And running an international cap and trade system would require a big bureaucracy too, to enforce the emissions limits and prevent cheating. But unlike with national regulations, a cap and trade bureaucracy would be an international body, and will be seen as an unpopular threat to our national independence.
In the past there was no cost for polluting the atmosphere because although everyone needs air, no o...

In the past there was no cost for polluting the atmosphere because although everyone needs air, no one actually owns it (so you weren’t charged for messing it up). Market mechanisms are about putting a cost on carbon emissions so that polluting becomes expensive. They will give a strong push to business and families to be more careful in their use of energy. Bringing in new technology to cut the amount of carbon their factories, vehicles and homes put out will save them money. The more they cut emissions, the more they save (and the more profits companies will make). In contrast, regulations have only a cost for companies and consumers so they will only do the bare minimum to meet the government’s standards.
The market will work better at a global level. Usually each country sets its own regulations and so...

The market will work better at a global level. Usually each country sets its own regulations and so things like pollution limits and vehicle fuel standards differ a lot. This will make it difficult and expensive for international business to follow lots of different regulations. And as regulating business raises its costs and can hit trade and economic growth, individual countries may choose to set weak standards (especially if they are developing countries). Market methods are more likely to work across borders, tying every country into the same international system, just as global trade and finance already do. Developing states are more likely to come on board with a market system, as they can profit from a carbon tax or from selling carbon permits.
Using the market will persuade people to choose greener ways of living which put less carbon into th...

Using the market will persuade people to choose greener ways of living which put less carbon into the air. Regulations force people to do things against their will, which can be unfair and could make green ideas very unpopular. Market mechanisms change the prices people will pay but still allow them choices about how they will live. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would both raise the cost of electricity and gasoline, and so encourage (rather than force) many people to change their lifestyle. They may choose to live nearer work or their children’s schools, take the bus or train rather than drive, holiday at home rather than fly overseas, and update their home’s heating system for one which uses less energy. Such changes will come quite quickly with market mechanisms, but regulations often take ages to take effect. Usually tough new standards only apply to new buildings, cars or products, but most people will make do with their old ones for many years. This means it might take more than a decade after new rules come in for emissions to drop by much.
Market solutions can take advantage of the fact that it does not cost the same amount everywhere to ...

Market solutions can take advantage of the fact that it does not cost the same amount everywhere to reduce carbon emissions. Western cars, homes and factories are often so efficient that reducing their carbon output by even a tiny amount would cost a huge sum of money. In contrast, the older technology in less developed countries is often much more polluting. Spending a little bit of money bringing it up to date would save a huge amount of carbon being pumped out. Putting a price on carbon means that money will be spent where it will have the greatest effect. This means we can tackle climate change more quickly and with less damage to the world economy than if we used regulations. That market mechanisms are likely to move money from the rich world to the poor is a positive side-effect of the system.
The European trading systems has run into problems, but this is mostly because politicians interfere...

The European trading systems has run into problems, but this is mostly because politicians interfered to protect their own countries’ industries. Such meddling is even more common with government regulations, which often change so quickly that business cannot plan properly for the future. The EU is already improving its carbon trading scheme, and we can learn from their experiences to design a global system. For example, a smaller number of permits can be given out and they should be auctioned off to the highest bidders rather than given for free to old and inefficient industries. On the other hand, we could choose to create a carbon tax instead, which would be a very reliable way of putting a cost on pollution and ensuring emissions are cut.
Poor treatment acts as a recruitment tool: stories of Guatanemo Bay or Abu Ghraib fuel terrorist pro...

Poor treatment is not a significant recruitment tool: whilst some people may be encouraged to join terrorist groups as a result of such behaviour, those who are outraged by human rights abuses in this context should be equally concerned about the violation of human rights which occurs when a terrorist detonates a bomb, or flies into a building, killing large numbers of innocent civilians. The ideology invoked exists independently of the way in which suspects are treated, as discussed above, and indoctrination with such beliefs is the real tool in the recruitment process.
Harsh interrogation of captives is rarely effective. Those who are prepared to die to advance their...

Compliance with the Geneva Convention does undermine our ability to get valuable information: the Convention not only prohibits torture, but also mental coercion, threats, insults or disadvantageous treatment in the pursuit of intelligence. Each form of interrogation is valuable in certain circumstances. For example, torture may not be effective to collect evidence about a plot from scratch, but it may be an effective means of forcing suspects to disclose one or two specific details. Disadvantageous treatment or threats may also provide useful incentives for suspects, particularly those concerned about the welfare of their families. In a ticking bomb scenario, a state which fails to take such actions is arguably responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians which occur as a result.
It might be desirable to treat detainees as criminal suspects and put them through a trial process, ...

Prisoners of war can be detained for the duration of hostilities, and are only entitled to return home at the end of the war. Given the open-ended nature of the war on terror, it is very likely that treating terrorist detainees as POWs will mean they are never released. Better instead to treat them as criminals accused of terrorist offences, and to put them through a proper trial process.
Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite to undertake military action in favour of...

Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite to undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and re-establishing the Caliphate. The fact that we may not views these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists.
Poor treatment acts as a recruitment tool: stories of Guatanemo Bay or Abu Ghraib fuel terrorist pro...

Poor treatment acts as a recruitment tool: stories of Guatanemo Bay or Abu Ghraib fuel terrorist propaganda and act as a useful recruitment tool. Members of Islamic groups, who were initially uncertain about the legitimacy of terrorist activities may be sufficiently horrified by acts of torture of sexual humiliation that they are more easily converted to these extreme views. In addition, such behaviour can be used to justify terrorist actions to less radicalised members of certain communities.
Harsh interrogation of captives is rarely effective. Those who are prepared to die to advance their...

Harsh interrogation of captives is rarely effective. Those who are prepared to die to advance their cause are unlikely to yield information, no matter how much they are threatened or tortured. Where captives do provide information, they often state simply what they think that the interrogators want to hear, rather than anything that is true. In addition, given the cellular nature of many terrorist organisations, those captured often have very little useful information to begin with. Even if they have been involved in a plot, they may only have information about a very small part of that plot.
It might be desirable to treat detainees as criminal suspects and put them through a trial process, ...

It might be desirable to treat detainees as criminal suspects and put them through a trial process, sentencing those against whom credible evidence exists and releasing the rest, but this has not happened. Instead detainees in Guantanamo and elsewhere are now in legal limbo with little prospect of ever getting out. Giving them prisoner of war status is a much better solution. As the terrorist threat recedes in individual countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia), hostilities can be judged to have finished and their prisoners can be repatriated and rehabilitated into society.