BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corporate broadcasters respond to diverse market demands

"Broadcasting, reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine". Debatabase. 27 Aug. 2008 - "The ownership of broadcasting stations does respond to market forces – it is easy to establish new stations, and in a highly competitive market no company will run programming which alienates consumers for fear of commercial failure. In fact the FCC regulates media ownership very carefully to ensure that no one company dominates either nationally or in particular local markets. It is this interference which is truly hard to justify. Ultimately the left is just sore that their views are unpopular with the American people and that no one wants to listen to liberal stations like Air American Radio. Now they want to force liberal propaganda on everyone because they trust neither the American people nor the free market."
Fairness Doctrine falsely presumes "fairness" can be determined

Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities[...]Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it[...]The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement."
Fairness Doctrine harms instead of protecting free speech

Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views."
Fairness Doctrine would destroy viability of conservative radio

Michael Gerson. "Where the Mines Are". Washington Post. 14 Nov. 2008 - "Under this doctrine, three hours of Rush Limbaugh on a radio station would have to be balanced by three hours of his liberal equivalent. This may sound fair and balanced. But it is a classic case where the "unintended consequences" are so obvious that those consequences must be intended. It would destroy the profitability of conservative talk radio."
Fairness Doctrine opens the door to government abuse

Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)"
Fairness Doctrine actually stifles public debate

"No need to bring back the 'fairness doctrine'". Concord Monitor. 13 Nov. 2008 - "It sounds innocuous, even noble: In exchange for a license to use the public airwaves, broadcasters must demonstrate to the Federal Communications Commission that they are airing issues of public importance and reserving airtime for opposing views. But the FCC abandoned this requirement in 1987, and the intervening years have seen an explosion of forums and media for expressing a given point of view."
Public can judge extreme viewpoints: Fairness Doctrine unnecessary

Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin - "We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now. Rush and Sean (Hannity) are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected."[3]
Fairness Doctrine would open costly political battle

Michael Gerson. "Where the Mines Are". Washington Post. 14 Nov. 2008 - "During the campaign, Obama signaled that he did not support the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are big fans of this regulation. And talk radio is already preparing for a showdown. If Obama were to endorse this doctrine, even reluctantly, the resulting fireworks would obscure every other topic."
Fairness Doctrine remains important despite new media

Nick Carr. "Who killed the blogosphere?". Rough Type. 7 Nov. 2008 - "When "the wireless" was introduced to America around 1900, it set off a surge in amateur broadcasting, as hundreds of thousands of people took to the airwaves. "On every night after dinner," wrote Francis Collins in the 1912 book Wireless Man, "the entire country becomes a vast whispering gallery."
Fairness Doctrine can benefit outrageous perspectives

Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis. "What’s Fair Is Fair. And fair is not the 'Fairness Doctrine.'". National Review Online. 20 Oct. 2008 - "The doctrine also resulted in lawsuits such as one in 1978 when NBC aired a show on the Holocaust and was sued by a group demanding air time to argue that the Holocaust was a myth. The network had to defend itself for over three years."
Fairness Doctrine would counter conservative domination of radio

Steve Rendall. "How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back". Common Dreams. 12 Feb. 2005 - "Sinclair’s history of one-sided editorializing and right-wing water-carrying, which long preceded its Stolen Honor ploy (Extra!, 11–12/04), puts it in the company of political talk radio, where right-wing opinion is the rule, locally and nationally. Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone—one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy."
Fairness Doctrine ignores sufficiency of modern media outlets

Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard."
Fairness Doctrine is more a code of conduct than mandate

"TV View; Why the Fairness Doctrine is Still Important". New York Times. 15 Sept. 1985 - "The Fairness Doctrine always has been more symbolic than real, more a standard to be strived for than an absolute command. The F.C.C. has not been punitive or capricious in enforcing it, and although broadcasters say the Fairness Doctrine exerts a chilling effect, preventing them from examining controversial issues, the chill seems to be mostly in their minds. The F.C.C. seldom penalizes anyone."
Fairness Doctrine protects against odious views gaining legitimacy

"TV View; Why the Fairness Doctrine is Still Important". New York Times. 15 Sept. 1985 - "Microphones and cameras are beguiling. They confer identity and status on the people who use them. Those who believe themselves to be disenfranchised can find a home[...]In a way, that's what the dispute over the television coverage of terrorism is all about. Causes, no matter how odious, may be legitimatized by media exposure. Under the Fairness Doctrine, a radio or television station that advocates an odious cause may be held accountable if it does not present a countervailing view. In the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, there is no necessity for it to do so. Indeed, in the absence of any restriction, an odious cause may not only be heard; it may control the radio or television station itself."
Fairness Doctrine rightly regulates free speech on public airwaves

U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. - "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
Fairness Doctrine counters corporate control of broadcasting

"Broadcasting, reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine". Debatabase. 27 Aug. 2008 - "The ownership structure of the radio market is unfair, dominated as it is by a few big companies who impose a right-wing agenda on the stations they control. An analysis of the content broadcast by the top five station-owning companies showed that over 90% of the talk they broadcast is right-wing in nature. Other voices not given a look-in. Given election results, this clearly cannot be reflecting any competitive forces but is instead pushing a particular political viewpoint upon the marketplace. In such a case of market failure it is necessary for the state to require free access to the airwaves for alternative viewpoints."
Fairness Doctrine does not require equal time for viewpoints

Steve Rendall. "How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back". Common Dreams. 12 Feb. 2005 - "There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50."
Balanced left/right broadcasting exist w/o Fairness Doctrine

Pete Winn. "Democratic Senator Tells Conservative Radio Station He’d Re-impose Fairness Doctrine--on Them". CNS News. 28. Oct. 2008 - "[Jim Villanucci:] in this market, for instance, you’ve got KKOB. If you want liberal talk, you’ve got Air America in this market, you’ve got NPR, you’ve got satellite radio – there’s a lefty talk station and a rightie talk station. Do you think there are people who aren’t able to find a viewpoint that is in sync with what they believe?"
Fairness Doctrine does not expose broadcasters to risk of litigation

"TV View; Why the Fairness Doctrine is Still Important". New York Times. 15 Sept. 1985 - "Broadcasters, meanwhile, say the Fairnesss Doctrine imposes an unfair burden. They complain that it allows them to be harassed by nuisance suits and plagued by partisans who claim they do not present both sides of an issue. In 1974, the F.C.C. responded to similar complaints from broadcasters by saying that these burdens simply run with the territory. Last month's F.C.C. report reversed this position. It said the burdens were onerous, and that the fear of attracting them imposed a chilling effect on broadcast journalism. It apparently causes the broadcasters to stay away from controversial issues.
Fariness Doctrine applies only to controversial broadcastings

"TV View; Why the Fairness Doctrine is Still Important". New York Times. 15 Sept. 1985 - "broadcasters are not required to extend the reasonable opportunity for inconsequential issues; they are required to extend it only for controversial issues. It's hard to understand how this impedes broadcast journalism. In fact, the Fairness Doctrine is predicated on what seem to be the most elementary rules of journalism."
Fairness Doctrine does not censor; only ensures balance

Jeff Cohen. "The "Hush Rush" Hoax: Limbaugh on the Fairness Doctrine". FAIR.org. November/December 1994 - "The Fairness Doctrine isn't going to take Rush Limbaugh off the air," remarked Larry King (The Rush Limbaugh Story, Paul Colford). "Be fair: What's wrong with that? If I were Rush, I would want a liberal host following my show."
Popularity of conservative talk radio confirms its legitimacy

"Broadcasting, reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine". Debatabase. 27 Aug. 2008 - "Broadcasting is a business, not different in character from any other. We need to take a market view and let the public as consumers decide what they want to listen to rather than imposing it upon them. There is nothing to stop anyone launching a liberal talk radio station, and indeed there have been many attempts to do so. But these have proved unpopular failures, because the public does not want to buy what they are peddling. Talk radio is successful because its broadcasters share the values of the American people, and are able to express the way they feel about the key issues of the day. One of those issues is the way in which strong public opinion (e.g. over immigration, NAFTA or school prayer) has been consistently ignored by politicians over many decades – they say one thing at election time and then do another in Washington. If talk radio publicises representatives’ voting records and enables their voters to hold them to account, then so much the better."
Free speech without Fairness Doctrine can harm policy-making

"Broadcasting, reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine". Debatabase. 27 Aug. 2008 - "Unbalanced broadcasting also affects policymaking, in ways which are bad for our country. Talk radio hosts can fire up their audiences over particular issues, successfully urging them to place so much pressure on their elected representatives that they are able to impose their agenda at state and federal level. This attacks the representative principle – that elected officials must use their best judgement to make decisions for the good of all, rather than bending to the uninformed and perhaps temporary will of mass opinion. Such campaigns are particularly dangerous on issues such as trade and immigration where the populist argument seems simple, easily summed up in appealing nativist slogans. Often the alternative case is more complex, requiring a greater level of economic and political education and a willingness to study dispassionately a range of evidence. Following the collapse in 2007 of attempts at immigration reform, even Tent Lott, a leading Republican Senator, has lamented that talk radio is running the country, having power without responsibility."
Pipeline spills are uncommon.

Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "National pipeline statistics indicate that pipeline accidents are uncommon and that leaks tend to be small; most pipeline leaks involve three barrels or less, 80 percent of spills involve less than 50 barrels and less than 0.5 percent of spills total more than 10,000 barrels."
Keystone pipeline important as long as economy depends on oil.

Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "The larger debate [...] is whether we need to wean ourselves off of oil in the near term, period. And that is a debate worth having. But so long as we’re an oil addicted economy, the tar sands I think can play an important role in the world oil market."[4]
Keystone XL would be one of the safest pipelines ever.

Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "Using the most advanced technology, the pipeline will be monitored 24 hours a day through a centralized control centre. 16,000 sensors embedded in the pipeline provide data via satellite every five seconds. If the slightest drop in pipeline pressure is detected, remote valves are automatically closed, shutting off the flow of oil within minutes. Our pipeline would cross Montana’s Yellowstone River. As Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) pointed out, Keystone XL will use the most advanced construction techniques, including horizontal directional drilling that allows us to drill under the river a minimum of 25 feet. The pipe will be built with thicker steel, operate at a lower pressure and use advanced coatings to protect the surface from abrasion – all in an effort to further improve safety. To ensure the integrity of our pipelines longer term, they are cathodically protected, which means a low-voltage electric current runs through the pipeline, inhibiting external corrosion."
Keystone XL could create 100,000 jobs.

"Jobs in the Pipeline." Wall Street Journal Editorial. July 7th, 2001: "With 9.1% unemployment and gasoline prices in the stratosphere, President Obama must sometimes wish that some big corporation would suddenly show up and offer a shovel-ready, multibillion-dollar project to create 100,000 jobs and reduce U.S. reliance on oil from dictatorships. Oh, wait. His Secretary of State has had that offer sitting on her desk since she was sworn in."
Keystone taps Alberta tar sands, the world's dirtiest fuel.

"Keystone XL Pipeline." Friends of the Earth: "Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads."
US pipeline strategically taps huge Canadian oil reserves.

Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "It is now estimated that Canada has the world’s second largest oil reserves, only after Saudi Arabia. So, from purely the perspective of the oil market, Canada’s role and the United States’ interests in those tar sands is a very important one - a very important public policy issue for this nation."[5]
Pipelines are the safest mode of transportation.

Russell K. Girling. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." TransCanada Corporation. July 13th, 2011: "Pipelines remain the safest method of transporting oil – safer than tankers, trucks or rail. Each day in the U.S., more than 200,000 miles of pipelines move oil and other energy products safely to where they are needed. That’s enough pipe to circle the earth eight times."
Climate targets could still be met with oil sands.

Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "I have no doubt that if you look at the amount of resources that are talked about with the tar sands, or around the world, if we were simply to burn all of these oil reserves, we could probably still meet some of the climate targets of two degrees or three degrees Celsius. You know, scientists say that we can release only another 500 billion tons of carbon, and if you look at natural gas or oil, we can probably burn through most of that and still meet those numbers. We can’t do that plus burn all the coal in the world, of course."[3]
Moderate corporal punishment is not psychologically damaging

David Benatar. "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: "[Claim:] Corporal punishment is psychologically damaging [...] Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can significantly increase the chances of such psychological harm, most of the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such consequences. [...] First, the studies are not conclusive. The main methodological problem is that the studies are not experiments but post facto investigations based on self-reports. [...] The second point is that even if Professor Straus's findings are valid, the nature of the data is insufficiently marked to justify a moral condemnation of mild and infrequent corporal punishment."
Generations of people have been subjected to corporal punishment.

People have been subjected to corporal punishment for years and have turned out just fine. Individuals of all types in society continually give testimony to their own happy and disciplined lives, following corporal punishment as children, and there is no reason to doubt the validity of these claims. Indeed, if someone was spanked as a child and turned out more disciplined, successful, and happy as a result - even if only according to their own interpretations - who is to say that their judgment to deal with their kids in similar ways is invalid. How can the government restrict their right to exercise this judgment and what they see as within the interests of their children.
Risks of sexual abuse with spanking can be regulated.

David Benatar. "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: "It is, of course, a concern that some parents or teachers might derive sexual gratification from beating children, but is it a reason to eliminate or ban the practice? Someone might suggest that it is, if the anticipated sexual pleasure led to beatings that were inappropriate--either because children were beaten when they should not have been, or if the punishment were administered in an improper manner. However, if this is the concern, surely the fitting response would be to place limitations on the use of the punishment and, at least in schools, to monitor and enforce compliance."
There is a difference between corporal punishment and child abuse.

Corporal punishment is designed to punish specific acts of significant misbehavior and delinquency. It is not a wanton and unreasonable act of violence. Child abuse, on the contrary, is the unjustified and unreasoned beating of children. The act of child-abuse is not meant to punish a child, but is inflicted without restraint or concern for the general welfare of a child. The intention of corporal punishment, on the contrary, is meant to instill a level of discipline in a child that is necessary to their future. It is in the child's best interest, whereas child-abuse is clearly not.
People "doing fine" after corporal punishment were harmed

Laurie A. Couture. "Argument #1: "It didn't do ME any harm!". Child Advocate.org.: "Answer: Often people who declare this typical argument do so very defensively. They may feel they must defend the actions of their caretakers. To do otherwise is to admit that as children, they never deserved to have pain inflicted upon them. They must also admit to the feelings of fear, anger and mistrust that may have resulted from being hit by loved ones who were supposed to keep them safe from harm. Often, people who use this argument use or have used corporal punishment on their own children, thus defending their actions to minimize guilt. However, their actions reveal that corporal punishment DID do them harm: It perpetuated the cycle of violence that they now endorse or inflict upon children."
Corporal punishment on the buttocks is a sexual violation

Child Corporal Punishment: The anti-spanking position": "Slapping or any other type of force used on the buttocks is a sexual violation: The buttocks are an erogenous zone of the human body. Their nerve system is connected to the body's sexual nerve centers. Slapping them can involuntarily trigger feelings of sexual pleasure which become mixed with the pain. This can lead to confusion in the child's mind which influences the way in which they express their sexuality as adults."