BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Second Amendment confers the individual right to self defense

Modern legal scholarship posits that the amendment is the affirmation of the the individual freedom to posses guns and use them for self protection.James Madison's original version of the amendment described the militia as comprised of people . This reflects the framer's intent to extend this freedom to every citizen as a right to self protection .The amendment reflects the philosophical foundation of the American societies built as counter hegemonic culture formed and perpetuated by the preservation of freedom.
If 2nd Amendment aims only at military preparedness, guns should be available for training only

Some argue that one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment is to enable citizens to train with weapons so that they are prepared for military service or the draft. If this is the case, and if the military is fully capable of supplying citizens with guns upon entering the service or being drafted, then it is appropriate to restrict citizen gun-use to training purposes at gun ranges. In this case, there is no need for citizens to own guns, but only the need for citizens to train with them such that they are fully prepared to serve militarily.
Gun bans only disarm citizens that are not inclined to commit crimes

Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776[8] - "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Patent licenses are very costly, impair R and D

Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "Apologists for gene patents argue that the issue is a tempest in a teapot, that patent licenses are readily available at minimal cost. That’s simply untrue. The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study this disease. Not surprisingly, many other researchers choose to study something less expensive."
Patents provide incentive for R&D investment in product

Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "In the noise and misinformation about gene patents, basic, common-sense principles are lost. These principles have supported the patent system for over 200 years and have contributed to the technological greatness of this nation and to the benefits that technology brings to humankind. They bear repeating. The inventor brings something new to the world. The patent provides the incentive to bring it to market. And new biomedical and agricultural products improve the human condition."
Gene patenting can violate freedom of thought.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet of New York ruled in November of 2009 that a case against gene patents by Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City could proceed. This was on the basis that Gene patents grant Myriad ownership rights over products of nature, laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas and basic human knowledge and thought, and that this could violate the First Amendment’s protections over freedom of thought.
Little evidence exists that gene patents hurt research

Timothy Caulfield. "Do gene patents hurt research?" Science Progress. October 29, 2009: "There is little evidence that the problem exists. There is lots of social angst, but no good data showing a widespread patent thicket/anti-commons phenomenon. A large 2007 study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science found “very little evidence of an ‘anticommons problem.’” A 2005 study done for the National Academy of Sciences found only 1 percent of the scientists surveyed reported suffering a project delay of more than 1 month due to patents."
Gene patents do not offer monopoly power to inventors

Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "It is also not a monopoly, even though the right extends to a class of things, because a monopoly is defined by market power. As many a disappointed inventor well knows, having a patent is no guarantee of commercial success. Quite simply, a patent is granted to provide the inventor and/or his company or investors the incentive to undertake the costly and risky process of further development and commercialization. They will do so because they can charge enough for the product to recover their investment. [...] In return, the public gets the invention, but not for free. What it gets for free is the new technical knowledge to build on because the patent must disclose how to make and how to use the invention in terms that a person skilled in that technology can understand. And, after the patent expires, the public even gets the invention for free."
Isolated gene sequences are new, not "part of nature"

Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "A person who discovers a new function of a known DNA sequence, such as its previously unknown association with particular disease, can patent a method of using the isolated sequence to detect susceptibility to that disease. Isolated DNA sequences do not occur in nature. They are new."
Gene patents are essential to future of biotech industry

Danny Rose. "Gene patents ban 'would hit biotech'." Sydney Morning Herald. November 5, 2009: "Changing Australian law to explicitly rule out patents being applied to human genes would drive research jobs and investment dollars offshore, an expert panel says. [...] The potential change, now under consideration by a Senate inquiry, also threatened to 'bring the Australian biotech industry to its knees', says the Institute of Patent and Trademark Attorneys of Australia (IPTA), which staged the panel event on Thursday. [...] 'It would seriously affect the biotechnology industry in that it would be difficult to attract investment in research that has commercial opportunities if it couldn't be protected,' IPTA councillor Trevor Davies said while at the event in Sydney."
Gene patents can harm patient care and pricing

Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "Canavan disease is an inherited disorder that affects children starting at 3 months [...] When the gene was identified in 1993, the families got the commitment of a New York hospital to offer a free test to anyone who wanted it. But the researcher’s employer, Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, patented the gene and refused to allow any health care provider to offer the test without paying a royalty."
Gene patents allow others to use and profit-from invention

Geoffrey M. Karny. "In Defense of Gene Patenting." Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. April 1, 2007: "The invention must be described in a manner to enable other people skilled in that technology to make and use it. This permits others in the field to build on the new knowledge. Finally, the invention must be clearly claimed so that the public knows the scope of the limited property right."
Genes can be re-ordered, but not invented

"Patenting life is owning life." Third World Network: "whilst I create my carburettor out of materials that have nothing to do with delivering measured amounts of petroleum, I introduce genes or traits into an organism only if they already exist as such in another organism or organisms. Can I patent a car because I fit it with a different kind of carburettor from another car? Therefore breeding and genetic engineering reorganise something existing; they do not create anything de novo. Considering achievements in reorganising as if they were inventions, is a distortion of meaning, with the aim of distorting reality. This distortion is made for a specific purpose, for controlling living things in the same way as one can control machines one has invented."
Gene patents harm efforts to tailor medicine to individuals

Michael Crichton. "Patenting Life." New York Times (Op-Ed). February 13, 2007: "Even your doctor can’t get relevant information. An asthma medication only works in certain patients. Yet its manufacturer has squelched efforts by others to develop genetic tests that would determine on whom it will and will not work. Such commercial considerations interfere with a great dream. For years we’ve been promised the coming era of personalized medicine — medicine suited to our particular body makeup. Gene patents destroy that dream."
Gene patent monopolies impair research and development

David Kravets "ACLU: Human Gene Patents Infringe Speech." ACLU. May 13, 2009: "Myriad Genetics, owns the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes associated with hereditary forms of breast and ovarian cancer. They also own the only currently available diagnostic test for these genes, which they sell for a little over three thousand dollars. And they control the right to allow testing and experimentation on these genes. It is no exaggeration to say that Myriad controls every facet of those genes. As a result, many women have been unable to get vital health information, and scientists have been unable to perform important research without paying large sums of money to Myriad."
Gene patents imagine R&D only done by private companies

Gene Patenting. Debatabase. April 14, 2009: "Most research is not done by private companies. The Human Genome Project has contributed by far the greater amount of knowledge in this area. In some cases it seems that private companies have speedily patented genes, which public scientists claim to have discovered first. The percentage of ‘Biotechnology’ firms’ budgets spent on R&D is minimal. Indeed, banning patenting actually protects the public investment into genome research which could become wasted if private companies stifle attempts to research into genes, on which they hold a patent."
Genes cannot be owned practically, are part of commons

David Koepsell. "The Case Against Gene Patents." Practicing Law Institute. June 13, 2009: "I argue that the genome is a commons. There are parts of the world that cannot be owned in any practical sense. Radio spectra are my favorite example. There’s no way to exert ownership over a particular band. [...] I argue that genes [...] are simply unencloseable. Parents all over the world are reproducing patented genes, technically violating the patents on those genes because they haven’t sought permission and aren’t paying royalties. The idea is absurd, of course. This is why the practice is absurd. Unmodified genes simply cannot be owned, nor should they be."
Gene patents impair research on diseases

Julian Borger. "Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease." Guardian.co.uk. December 15, 2009: "Vital medical research aimed at developing screening methods and cures for congenital diseases is being stifled by the rush to patent human genes and the corporate use of those patents to maximise profits. A poll of American laboratory directors found that a quarter of them had received letters from lawyers acting for biotechnology companies ordering them to stop carrying out clinical tests designed to spot early warning signs for Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer and an array of other disorders."
No certainty that a patented gene sequence is unique to a species

"Patenting life is owning life." Third World Network: "If we use the determination of the nucleic acid sequence constituting a gene as a criterion for patenting, and I understand that this is the case, how would we know that the sequence is unique to the organism being patented? The number of species on earth is estimated to be 10 to 60 million. So far, we know the nucleic acid sequences of all the genes only for one species, the bacterium Escherschia coli. Assuming that the patenting of a nucleic acid sequence can be allowed only if it is new to life, which would make it a genuine invention, could we ever be certain that a nucleic acid sequence which we find in an organism is really new to life? Obviously not. If we allow patenting for a mere determination of nucleic acid sequences, how will we cope with the sequences which are the same but are in different species?"
Most advanced democratic countries honor public union bargaining.

"US: Honor Public Workers’ Bargaining Rights." Human Rights Watch. February 25th, 2011: "Most major advanced democratic countries honor collective bargaining rights of public employees. For example, all EU countries allow public sector workers to bargain collectively. In a 2008 case, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey's restrictions on public employee bargaining rights violated the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the province of British Columbia to restore collective bargaining agreements nullified by legislation."
Undemocratic states are most likely to restrict public bargaining.

"US: Honor Public Workers’ Bargaining Rights." Human Rights Watch. February 25th, 2011: "many undemocratic countries restrict or prohibit collective bargaining by public employees. For example, the Egyptian government has prohibited public sector collective bargaining. It allowed public employee unions to exist, but in name only, favoring government-controlled unions and quashing any attempt to bargain collectively."
Union employee benefits can be cut without denying bargaining rights.

Michael Bloomberg. Limit Pay, Not Unions." New York Times. February 27th, 2011: "Across the country, taxpayers are providing pensions, benefits and job security protections for public workers that almost no one in the private sector enjoys. Correcting this imbalance is not easy, but in a growing number of states, budget deficits are being used to justify efforts to scale back not only labor costs, but labor rights. [...] the problem is not unions expressing those rights; it is governments failing to adapt to the times and act in a fiscally responsible manner. If contract terms or labor laws from years past no longer make sense, we the people should renegotiate — or legislate — changes. Benefits agreed to 35 years ago that now are unaffordable should be reduced. Similarly, work rules that made sense 70 years ago but are now antiquated should be changed."
Public unions diff than private, shouldn't have bargaining rights

Andrew G. Biggs. "Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining." US News. February 25th, 2011: "those public-employee-friendly candidates, once in office, face a much looser budget constraint than in the private sector. There are no measures of profit or loss by which to gauge public employee pay, and, as recent events have shown, it is only when government budgets enter crisis mode that the hard questions start being asked."
Absence of unions does not ensure deficit reductions.

David Madland. "Public Sector Unions Should Have the Right to Collective Bargaining." US News and World Report. February 25th, 2011: "And the absence of public sector unions does not necessarily help balance state budgets, either. Texas, which does not allow collective bargaining and has a very weak union movement, faces a $27 billion budget deficit over the next two fiscal years, a budget deficit similar in size to California's, but with a much smaller economy."
Rights cannot violate other rights

One person's rights cannot be in conflict with another person's rights, nor can the rights of persons acting in a group violate the rights of person's acting in another group. Although every worker has the legal right to speak, no employer has the legal or moral obligation to listen. Although every citizen in the U.S. has the legal right to petition government, no government representative has the legal or moral obligation to implement the request. Although every person has the legal and moral right to associate, no person has the moral right to do whatever they want while associating. Government representatives have the same rights as public workers. They have the right to say "no" to requests for increases in financial compensation or changes in working conditions. Public workers also have the right to strike and/or quit.
Public employees overpaid, shouldn't have bargaining rights

Andrew G. Biggs. "Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining." US News. February 25th, 2011: "But whether we should limit public sector pay and benefits and public employees' right to collectively bargain for them hinges on whether government employees are overpaid to begin with. That remains an open debate, depending upon how the question is asked and which employees are analyzed. At the federal level, there is little doubt among academic economists that salaries are higher than those paid to private workers with similar education and experience—the 1999 Handbook of Labor Economics lists a number of peer-reviewed studies showing a salary premium of 10-20 percent. At the state and local level, salaries tend to be somewhat lower, but benefits and job security usually make up the difference. A recent raft of studies from left-leaning think tanks argue that state and local employees are underpaid even after benefits are considered, but these studies generally undercount government pension benefits and omit often-generous retiree health coverage."
Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right.

Michael Zimmer. "Collective Bargaining as a Human Right." Michael Zimmer.org. February 20th, 2011: "I wanted to use this space to give credence to the argument that collective bargaining is a fundamental human right, recognized internationally in various conventions, constitutions, and courts. For example, Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organise trade unions as a fundamental human right, while item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the 'freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining' as an essential right of all workers. Consider the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution, which guarantees that 'Every trade union, employers’ organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining.'"
Majority supports collective bargaining for public employees.

Dennis Cauchon. "Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights." USA TODAY. February 28th, 2011: "Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law."
Collective bargaining gives public unions unequal power

David Crane. "Should public employees have collective bargaining?" SF Gate. February 27th, 2011: "in 1962 the federal government gave collective bargaining rights to federal employees, and in 1977 California followed suit. However, because state employees already had civil service protections, collective bargaining wasn't needed to equalize their power with employers' power. As a result, collective bargaining for public employees in California changed the balance of power and - most importantly - gave public employees power over their compensation and benefits. [...] Collective bargaining is a good thing when it's needed to equalize power, but when public employees already have that equality because of civil service protections, collective bargaining in the public sector serves to reduce benefits for citizens and to raise costs for taxpayers. Citizens and taxpayers should consider this as they watch events unfold in Madison."
"Opposition" to taking away collective bargaining based on bad polling.

Tim Kane. "Are collective bargaining rights really that great?" Christian Science Monitor. February 25th, 2011: "Consider the phrasing of this Gallup poll (which was the top story in yesterday's USA Today). Would you favor or oppose a law in your state taking away some collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers union? Yikes. Even a cold-hearted economist like me isn't in favor of TAKING AWAY stuff from others. Let alone taking away their RIGHTS. That sounds mean, which is why 61 percent of respondents were opposed. No doubt, the response would be different if the question involved trade-offs, which is what real-world choices are about. For example: Would you favor a law in your state ending collective bargaining for public-sector workers or higher taxes on your children over the next few decades?"
Democratic leaders used to oppose collective bargaining for public unions.

Franklin Roosevelt and George Meany, the first president of the AFL-CIO, opposed collective bargaining for the public sector. They didn't believe that collective bargaining rights belonged in the public sector, although they did strongly advocate for it in the private sector. They recognized the difference between the two things. And, being Democratic leaders, it is not possible to claim that they did not have concern for the working class and appropriate working conditions and pay for public and private employees.
Public union bargaining protected by international law

"US: Honor Public Workers’ Bargaining Rights." Human Rights Watch. February 25th, 2011: "International law on the right to bargain collectively applies in both private and public workplaces. The United States championed the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, under which the US pledged 'to promote and to realize ... fundamental rights' defined in the declaration, the first of which is 'freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.'"
Sport of hunting should, indeed, always be challenging

James Fenimore Cooper, The Pioneers - "The flesh is sweeter, where the creature has some chance for its life; for that reason, I always use a single ball, even if it be at a bird or a squirrel; besides, it saves lead, for, when a body knows how to shoot, one piece of lead is enough for all, except hard-lived animals."[1] Indeed, hunting should be a challenge, and not an easy affair. As long as this is the case, hunting can be justified.
Hunting is no sport; it's not a competition between equal parties

R. Lerner, letter, Sierra. March-April 1991 - "Whether hunting is right or wrong, a spiritual experience, or an outlet for the killer instinct, one thing it is not is a sport. Sport is when individuals or teams compete against each other under equal circumstances to determine who is better at a given game or endeavor. Hunting will be a sport when deer, elk, bears, and ducks are... given 12-gauge shotguns. Bet we'd see a lot fewer drunk yahoos (live ones, anyway) in the woods if that happened."[3]
Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them

Genesis 1:28 - "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This means that humans have the right to subdue and control animals for man's own purposes.
Dominion and hunting can and should be excercised responsibly.

The notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to hunt them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of hunt.