BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Not rebuilding New Orleans has nothing to do with race.

Stan Guthrie. "Don’t Rebuild New Orleans". 12 Sept. 2005 - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, speaking to the National Baptist Convention of America, noted what he called 'the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a significant role in who survived and who did not.' Unfortunately, loony conspiracy theories are nothing new for Dean, or for a significant percentage of the nation’s African American community[...]Such irrational fears play into the hands of a Democratic power structure ever eager for an excuse to bash the president, and looking for ways to keep African Americans on the liberal plantation. They are also a significant hindrance to many African Americans ever getting a realistic shot at the American Dream. While some discrimination still exists, the bigger problem for many blacks is their worldview."
New Orleans must be restored for its cultural value

Mark J. Clayton. "The view from the levee: a case for restoring New Orleans after the hurricanes of 2005". 2005 - "Contrary to popular perception, New Orleans is not a playground for college kids and Midwesterners who want to cut loose. New Orleans is one of the great ports of the world. Based on appreciation of historic value, cultural uniqueness, and simple compassion for those who have lost so much, the case for restoring New Orleans after the hurricanes of 2005 is compelling."
Rebuilding New Orleans will not return it to economic vibrancy

Edward L. Glaeser. "Should the Government Rebuild New Orleans, Or Just Give Residents Checks?". The Economist's Voice. Vol 2, Issue 4, 2005. - "Could New Orleans, with Spending, Somehow Return to Its Long-Past Glory? [...] Granted, some previously great ports have managed to rebuild themselves around new industries. New York is now devoted to finance. San Francisco is the center for information technology. [...] But New Orleans was never able to reinvent itself, perhaps because it lacked the human capital that has been so heavily correlated with urban success over the past 50 years."
Cities are not forever; New Orleans is no exception

"Don't Rebuild New Orleans". Watch Blog. 17 Dec. 2005 - "Cities are not forever. Been to Carthage lately? Miletus? Troy? Babylon? Nineveh? Persepolis? Jungles swallowed some cities. Deserts covered others. Some are underwater. Trade routes shifted. Harbors silted. Climates changed. Technologies made them obsolete. People moved away [...] New Orleans has experienced several of those things. How stupid would we have to be to spend billions of dollars to restore a mistake? Let's make a comparision."
New Orleans has been on the economic decline for decades

Edward L. Glaeser. "Should the Government Rebuild New Orleans, Or Just Give Residents Checks?". The Economist's Voice. Vol 2, Issue 4, 2005. - New Orleans is like many great American cities that were built during previous eras and have become somewhat obsolete [...] New Orleans began to decline, in absolute terms, in 1960. The port remains important, but increasing mechanization and containerization, together meant that fewer and fewer people were needed to work in that port. Today, according to the 2003 County Business Patterns, less than one-twentieth of the employees in New Orleans are in transportation industries, and more than a quarter of these aren’t even working in the port or pipelines."
New Orleans seriously damages the Mississippi river ecosystem

John Blair. "Not Where It Was. Should New Orleans be Rebuilt?". Counter Punch. 5 Sept. 2005 - "Much of the problem lies squarely with the US Army Corps of Engineers which has done everything Congress would fund to develop the Rivers for commerce, dismissing the needs of the natural world all along its path. Wetlands have been destroyed, rivers have been raised, channels have been altered and dams have been built. Together, these represent a complete assault on the natural systems that might have helped mitigate the disaster we experienced as a nation on the Gulf Coast."
Building and maintaining levees in New Orleans is costly

Joel K. Bourne, Jr. "New Orleans: A Perilous Future". National Geographic. August 2007 - "FROM ITS INCEPTION, the project was beset with technical problems, litigation, and political tinkering. What was supposed to be built in 13 years for 85 million dollars became a never ending 740-million-dollar project that was still ten years from completion when Katrina hit. The Government Accountability Office—the watchdog of Congress—had a field day, regularly criticizing the corps for cost overruns and delays."
US govt. allowed New Orleans crisis so must rebuild city

"New Orleans Needs More Federal Assistance to Rebuild, Panelists Argue". Conference on Public Service and the Law at the University of Virginia Law School. 22 Mar. 2006 - "the United States has a moral obligation to rebuild the city. Although Katrina was destructive, the city’s worst devastation came from the flooding that was a direct consequence of the breach in the levies, which 'is the responsibility without question of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.' [according to Kim M. Boyle, a member of the Bring New Orleans Back Commission]."
Teaching abstinence saves taxpayers money

LifeWay Christian Resources on Opposing Views - "Widespread premarital sex has created severe economic and social costs, not to mention the personal pain it places upon teenagers and their families. In pure economic terms, researchers estimate that adolescent childbearing itself costs the taxpayers $6.9 billion each year. Some estimates put the figure even higher. When other disadvantages faced by adolescent mothers are factored in, the cost to taxpayers leaps to between $13 billion and nearly $19 billion per year."
Condoms, not abstinence-only, decrease teenage pregnancy

"The Abstinence-Only Delusion". New York Times. 28 Apr. 2007 - "Supporters of abstinence-only education sometimes point to a sharp decline in teenage pregnancy rates in recent years as proof that the programs must be working. But a paper by researchers at Columbia University and the Guttmacher Institute, published in the January issue of The American Journal of Public Health, attributed 86 percent of the decline to greater and more effective use of contraceptives — and only 14 percent to teenagers’ deciding to wait longer to start having sex. At the very least, that suggests that the current policy of emphasizing abstinence and minimizing contraceptive use should be turned around."
Abstinence-only is not effective at reducing teen sex rates

Veronica Salazar. "Abstinence-only fails to stop early pregnancies, diseases". USA Today. 30 July 2007 - "Teaching abstinence has always had a certain appeal. How many parents disagree with the notion that their teens should postpone sex? But abstinence-only programs aren't having much success. [...]That conclusion comes from an eight-year, government-funded study recently released by highly respected, non-partisan Mathematica Policy Research Inc. The study zeroed in on four programs, selected for their variety of approaches, and followed students for four to six years. The authors of the 164-page report didn't equivocate: There is no evidence that abstinence-only programs reduce the rate of teen sexual activity."
Abstinence-only wrongly bashes all non-marital sex

Non-marital sex is not inherently wrong. If two consenting adults, or teens for that matter, wish to have sex, what is wrong with it (aside from the fact that they are not married)? Nothing, particularly if they are consenting individuals and feel fulfilled by the experience. In addition, it is important to recognize that marriage is a social and cultural phenomena not shared by all. While some people choose to get married, some people do not, even if they seek and obtain a life partner. Is this wrong? No. And, it is certainly unreasonable to expect that unmarried people abstain from sex. Therefore, abstinence-only sex education is wrong, in so far as it bashes non-marital sex.
Comprehensive sex-ed does not reduce STDs in teens

Mona Charen. "Abstinence education benefits". Washington Times. 5 Sept. 2008 - "The cheerleaders for contraceptives often overlook that reality in their eagerness to place condoms in the hands of teenagers. They also overlook this sorry fact of life: Teenagers are terrible contraceptors. Though 98 percent of sexually active teens report using at least one method of birth control, 8.4 percent got pregnant in 2000. Fully 25 percent of sexually active teens contract an STD each year. Some of these diseases, like genital herpes and AIDS, are incurable. Others can lead to infertility."
Abstinence-only wrongly teaches suppression of sexual impulses.

Individuals should not deny their natural sexual impulses. If an individual has a strong desire to have sex, they should probably pursue that desire, albeit responsibly. Teaching teens that sex is wrong, forces them to believe that their natural sexual impulses are wrong - causing great confusion and self-doubt - and causing the needless and frustrating suppression of sexual impulses. Instead, teens should be taught that these impulses are natural and beautiful, and should be helped in the process of understanding and channeling these impulses. This will help teens live a more fulfilling life, opposed to a life of self-denial.
Abstinence may be effective, but teens will never follow it

"Editorial: Sex ed/Abstinence-only is unrealistic". Star Tribune. 6 Dec. 2004 - "Bush undersecretary said further studies are unnecessary when abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy and disease. But that response sidesteps an important point: There is little proof that simply telling young people not to have sex actually changes their behavior."
Abstinence-only presumes pregnancy out-of-wedlock is always wrong

Stephanie Luke. "Sex education a must". The Daily Collegian. 4 Dec. 2008 - "Other requirements [Title V, Section (§) 510 of the Social Security Act] [...] seem to be aimed at bashing sex outside of marriage. An abstinence-only program must "teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; [and] teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society." [...] This is an offensive assumption that all children born out of wedlock are unplanned or even unwanted. Marriage and partnership are concepts that evolve with our society over time. Today the nuclear family is no longer a realistic picture of many American families."
Abstinence-only makes it socially acceptable to abstain from sex

Mona Charen. "Abstinence education benefits". Washington Times. 5 Sept. 2008: "Many [teens have sex] because the whole culture, very much including the schools, seems to be pushing them into it. Here is a letter from a reader: "I wish it had been taught or even talked about in my high school.... In 1977 I didn't want to have sex [but] you were considered sort of frigid or not grown up if you didn't go along with what everyone else was doing. ... I needed something, anything to point to as a good reason not to [other than my parents]...According to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly 30 percent of sexually active teens said they felt pressured into having sex."
Abstinence-only discourages condom-use, increases risks

Nicholas Kristoff. "The Secret War on Condoms". New York Times. 10 Jan. 2003 - "I'm all for abstinence education, and there is some evidence that promoting abstinence helps delay and reduce sexual contacts both in the U.S. and abroad. But young people have been busily fornicating ever since sex was invented, in 1963 (as the poet Philip Larkin calculated), and disparaging condoms is far more likely to discourage their use than to discourage sex. The upshot will be more gonorrhea and AIDS among young Americans -- and, abroad, many more people dying young. [...]'The Bush administration position basically condemns people to death by H.I.V./AIDS,' said Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition. And we're talking about tens of millions of people."
Sex-ed empowers informed decisions about risks of sex

"Editorial: Abstinence-Only Sex Ed". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 1 Sept. 2008 - "While teen pregnancies have fallen recently, sexually transmitted diseases, especially among young girls, have been on the rise [...] A study earlier this year by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in four young women ages 14 to 19 was infected with at least one of four common sexually transmitted diseases [...] To make good decisions, teenagers need to know all of their options - including abstinence. The state should not participate in encouraging programs that offer anything less."
Abstinence may have value, but only within comprehensive sex-ed

Barack Obama was reported saying on 20 Apr. 2008 - "...[W]hat I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children [...] But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process."[2]
Abstinence-only helps youth avoid emotional damage of sex

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "Young people who become sexually active are vulnerable to emotional and psychological injury as well as to physical diseases. Many young girls report experiencing regret or guilt after their initial sexual experience. In the words of one psychiatrist who recalls the effects of her own sexual experimentation in her teens, 'The longest-standing, deepest wound I gave myself was heartfelt; that sick, used feeling of having given a precious part of myself--my soul--to so many and for nothing, still aches. I never imagined I'd pay so dearly and for so long.'"
Youth want a strong abstinence message and education

"Teens Want a Strong Abstinence Message". LifeWay Christian Resources. Opposing Views: "Increasingly, young people are recognizing the benefits of abstinence education, despite a constant bombardment of sexually explicit messages from much of the mainstream media. For example, 94 percent of teenagers believe that teens should be given a strong message from society to abstain from sex until at least after high school. (Interestingly, this is 3 percent higher than parents.) In one study a majority of both teen girls and boys who are sexually active indicated they wish they had waited until they were older to have sex, and nearly seven in ten teens said they did not think it is okay for high school age teens to have sexual intercourse. In addition, engaging in premarital sex often leads to depression. What young people need today is less sex education and more love education."
Improper use of condoms is to blame for "ineffectiveness" of condoms.

While many abstinence-only advocates argue that comprehensive sex ed leads to increased sexuality and that condoms are not effective, the improper use of condoms is the true culprit of many teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs. According to one source, 54 percent of all women having abortions used contraception in the month they got pregnant; of the women using condoms, 14 percent were using them correctly. Imperfect usage is the primary cause of contraceptive failure.[3] Proper comprehensive sex education can ensure the proper use of condoms and reduce the transmission of STDs and teen pregnancy.
Sex-ed teaches nothing new in a culture of sex.

Increasing rates of teenage STIs, pregnancy and the shocking rise in abortion is more to do with the oft cited decaying fabric of society's values in relationships, family and life. Pop culture is increasingly sexualised. Just watch MTV for five minutes - there's nothing coy about anything children are exposed to from the media. While nobody is suggesting that this is an easy issue, perhaps we should address these attitudes rather than bashing the Western educational system for answering questions that many teenagers will raise anyway.
Parents prefer more modest abstinence-only sex-ed

LifeWay Christian Resources. "Parents Want a Strong Abstinence Message". Opposing Views - "The vast majority of parents believe that teenagers should be given a strong message from society to abstain from sex until at least after high school. A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents also found that abstinence education is the preferred approach for the sex education of youth in America. Key findings include: 9 out of 10 parents agree that being sexually abstinent is best for their child’s health and future, with 8 in 10 strongly agreeing; 78% of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use; 59% of parents said more funding should go to abstinence education."
Peer support of abstinence erodes as teens move through adolescence

"Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs". Mathematica. April 2007: "Peer Support for Abstinence Erodes as Youth Move Through Adolescence. At the time when most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs are completed and youth enter their adolescent years, support for abstinence among their friends falls dramatically. For example, survey data from the start of the impact study show that nearly all youth had friends who exhibited attitudes and behaviors supportive of abstinence. Four years later, however, the typical youth in the study reported that only two of his or her five closest friends remained supportive of abstinence."
Comprehensive sex-ed often ignores abstinence as an option

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "Conventional 'safe sex' programs (sometimes erroneously called 'abstinence plus' programs) place little or no emphasis on encouraging young people to abstain from early sexual activity. Instead, such programs strongly promote condom use and implicitly condone sexual activity among teens. Nearly all such programs contain material and messages that would be alarming and offensive to the overwhelming majority of parents."
Unglamorous sex-ed does not encourage sex.

It's ridiculous to think that those teenagers who are not thinking about sex and are unlikely to have an early first sexual experience are going to be rendered horny maniacs just because they are taught the unglamourous facts about sex. Have you been to a sex ed lesson - it's hardly the highlights of the Kama Sutra. Teenagers are often at a time that they are thinking about sex and relationships anyway, so for the benefit of those that may not have the sense to protect themselves but will have sex anyway, educating about prevention of STIs and pregnancy is the smart way of mananging the issue.
Virginity pledge programs are an effective form of abstinence-only

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "Virginity Pledge Programs. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Michael Resnick and others entitled "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" shows that "abstinence pledge" programs are dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7 through 12.19 Based on a large national sample of adolescents, the study concludes that 'Adolescents who reported having taken a pledge to remain a virgin were at significantly lower risk of early age of sexual debut.'"
Abstinence-only effectively reduces rates of teen sex and pregnancy

Life Way Christian Resources on Opposing Views - "Since 1991, when federal abstinence funding began, births to 15- to 17-year-olds have dropped 43 percent despite a 25 percent increase in that age group. In 1991, 54 percent of teens said they had had sex, compared to 47 percent in 2003. Further evidence that abstinence education works can be found in a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, which concluded that both abstinence and contraception contributed to the decline in teen pregnancy rates between 1991 and 2001. The study attributes the majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates (53 percent) among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use."
Abstinence-only correctly responds to an epidemic of STDs

Letter from Congressman Lee Terry requesting support for Title V funding (and the congressmen who signed it). 21 June 2007 - "Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidance that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm. These programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex for marriage and remaining faithful afterward is the best choice for health and happiness."
Abstinence-only discourages youth sex and risk-taking

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "Young people who become sexually active enter an arena of high-risk behavior that leads to physical and emotional damage. Each year, influenced by a combination of a youthful assumption of invincibility and a lack of guidance (or misguidance and misleading information), millions of teens ignore those risks and suffer the consequences."
Abstinence-only helps discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing [...] Today, one child in three is born out of wedlock. Only 14 percent of these births occur to women under the age of 18. Most occur to women in their early twenties.14 Thus, giving birth control to teens in high school through safe-sex programs will have little effect on out-of-wedlock childbearing. [...] Nearly half of the mothers who give birth outside marriage are cohabiting with the child's father at the time of birth.15 These fathers, like the mothers, are typically in their early twenties. Out-of-wedlock childbearing is, thus, not the result of teenagers' lack of knowledge about birth control or a lack of availability of birth control. Rather, it is part of a crisis in the relationships of young adult men and women. Out-of-wedlock childbearing, in most cases, occurs because young adult men and women are unable to develop committed, loving marital relationships. Abstinence programs, therefore, which focus on developing loving and enduring relationships and preparation for successful marriages, are an essential first step in reducing future levels of out-of-wedlock births."
Comprehensive sex-ed often actually encourages sex

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "many of these programs also implicitly encourage sexual activity among the youths they teach. Guidelines developed by SEICUS, for example, include teaching children aged five through eight about masturbation and teaching youths aged 9 through 12 about alternative sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, 'outercourse,' and oral sex.16 In addition, the SEICUS guidelines suggest informing youths aged 16 through 18 that sexual activity can include bathing or showering together as well as oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse, and that they can use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner. Not only do such activities carry their own risks for youth, but they are also likely to increase the incidence of sexual intercourse."