BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abstinence-only rightly teaches saving sex for marriage

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."
Condoms are not very effective at protecting against STDs

Robert Rector. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage. 8 Apr. 2002 - "[...] Significantly, research shows that condom use offers relatively little protection (from "zero" to "some") for herpes and no protection from the deadly HPV. A review of the scientific literature reveals that, on average, condoms failed to prevent the transmission of the HIV virus--which causes the immune deficiency syndrome known as AIDS--between 15 percent and 31 percent of the time. It should not be surprising, therefore, that while condom use has increased over the past 25 years, the spread of STDs has likewise continued to rise."
2009 US health care bill does not cut costs

David Brooks. "The Hardest Call." New York Times. December 17, 2009: "The Congressional Budget Office and most of the experts I talk to (including many who support the bill) do not believe it will seriously bend the cost curve. [...] Over its first several years, the demand for health care will rise sharply. The supply will not. Providers will have the same perverse incentives. As a result, prices will skyrocket while efficiencies will not. There will be a bipartisan rush to gut reform."
General statements against 2010 US health care reform

David Brooks. "The Hardest Call." New York Times. December 17, 2009: "If I were a senator forced to vote today, I’d vote no. If you pass a health care bill without systemic incentives reform, you set up a political vortex in which the few good parts of the bill will get stripped out and the expensive and wasteful parts will be entrenched. [...] Defenders say we can’t do real reform because the politics won’t allow it. The truth is the reverse. Unless you get the fundamental incentives right, the politics will be terrible forever and ever."
Mandates help end pre-existing condition exclusion

Paul Waldman. "The Health-Care Ultimatum." The American Prospect. December 22, 2009: "one of the core goals of this reform has always been forbidding insurance companies from denying people coverage because of their pre-existing conditions. But without a mandate, people could just wait until they get sick to sign up for coverage. If that were allowed, premiums would skyrocket to levels even more unaffordable than what we have now. It may be distasteful to deliver the insurance companies millions of new customers, but there's just no way around it."
US health reform does not respond to illegal immigration

Robert Samuelson. "A parody of leadership." Real Clear Politics. December 21, 2009: "The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children (many American born). Most illegal immigrants aren't covered by Obama's proposal. If we don't curb immigration of the poor and unskilled -- people who can't afford insurance -- Obama's program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants' impact, because it seems insensitive."
Health care reform would worsen the deficit

Robert Samuelson. "A parody of leadership." Real Clear Politics. December 21, 2009: "the health care proposals would impose massive costs. Remember: The country already faces huge increases in federal spending and taxes or deficits because an aging population will receive more Social Security and Medicare. Projections made by the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 suggested federal spending might rise almost 50 percent by 2030 as a share of the economy (gross domestic product). Since that estimate, the recession and massive deficits have further bloated the national debt. [...] Obama's plan might add almost another $1 trillion in spending over a decade -- and more later."
Health care bill would insure 30m Americans

"A bill well worth passing." New York Times Editorial. December 21, 2009: "There is a lot to like in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cover more than 30 million of the uninsured and would, by 2019, result in 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents below Medicare age having health insurance. That is a big improvement from the current 83 percent."
2009 health bill rushed through for political reasons

Jay Cost. "Democrats Risk Another Jacksonian Moment." Real Clear Politics. December 21, 2009: "It stinks of politics. Why is there such a rush to pass this bill now? It's because the President of the United States recognizes that it is hurting his numbers, and he wants it off the agenda. It might not be ready to be passed. In fact, it's obviously not ready! Yet that doesn't matter. The President wants this out of the way by his State of the Union Address. This is nakedly self-interested political calculation by the President - nothing more and nothing less."
2009 health bill forces buying from private insurers

Jane Hamsher. "10 Reasons to Kill the Senate Bill." FireDogLake. December 21, 2009: "[The bill] Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not. [...] If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS."
2009 health care reform bill can be improved over time

Paul Krugman. "Pass the Bill". New York Times Op-Ed. December 17, 2009: "Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans."
US health care law is political suicide for Dems

Megan McArdle. "Pass a Huge, Unpopular Bill w/Party-Line Vote?" The Atlantic. December 19, 2009: "Democrats are on a political suicide mission; I'm not a particularly accurate prognosticator, but I think this makes it very likely that in 2010 they will lost several seats in the Senate--enough to make it damn hard to pass any more of their signature legislation--and will lose the house outright. In the case of the House, you can attribute it to the fact that the leadership has safe seats. But three out of four of the Democrats on the podium today are in serious danger of losing their seats."
Health care reform limits costs of health care

Jonathan Cohn. "Andy Stern: Don't Kill the Bill. Fix It." The Plank, The Republic. December 18, 2009: "The second reason to support the bill is that its authors took the deficit issue seriously. Compared with, say, the prescription drug benefit from a few years ago, this bill is a model of fiscal rectitude. It spends a lot of money to cover the uninsured, but to help pay for it, it also includes serious Medicare cuts and whopping tax increases — the tax on high-cost insurance plans alone will raise $1.3 trillion in the second decade. [...] The bill is not really deficit-neutral. It’s politically inconceivable that Congress will really make all the spending cuts that are there on paper. But the bill won’t explode the deficit, and that’s an accomplishment."
Congress will not ultimately cut Medicare to pay for reform

William McKenzie. "Senate health bill should either be defeated or rewritten." Dallas News. January 21, 2009: "we consistently have warned about during this debate: The proposal still relies upon about half of its $871 billion financing through cuts in Medicare. [...] The real problem with these cuts is that they are very, very unlikely to occur. Over the last decade, Congress has shown a distinct unwillingness to make good on cuts to Medicare. Last month, the House voted to walk on $200 billion in promised cuts."
Health care law holds insurance companies in check

Tom Bevan. "President Obama's Remarks on Senate HC Vote." Time. December 24, 2009: "The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition. They will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get sick. No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need. And you'll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party."
2009 bill does not fundamentally reform health care

David Brooks. "The Hardest Call." New York Times. December 17, 2009: "The first reason to oppose this bill is that it does not fundamentally reform health care. The current system is rotten to the bone with opaque pricing and insane incentives. Consumers are insulated from the costs of their decisions and providers are punished for efficiency. Burkean gradualism is fine if you’ve got a cold. But if you’ve got cancer, you want surgery, not nasal spray."
US health care reform is bad bargain for money

Robert Samuelson. "A parody of leadership." Real Clear Politics. December 21, 2009: "Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Benefits are overstated, costs understated. This legislation is a monstrosity; the country would be worse for its passage."
Gains of insuring 30m uninsured must be qualified

Robert Samuelson. "A parody of leadership." Real Clear Politics. December 21, 2009: "To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 percent to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today's system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off."
Health care reform still valuable without public option

Paul Krugman. "Pass the Bill". New York Times Op-Ed. December 17, 2009: "The public option was always a means to an end: real competition for insurers, an alternative for consumers to existing private plans that does not deny needed care or shift risks onto the vulnerable, the ability to provide affordable coverage over time. I thought it was the best means within our political grasp. It lay just beyond that grasp. Yet its demise--in this round--does not diminish the immediate necessity of those larger aims. And even without the public option, the bill that Congress passes and the President signs could move us substantially toward those goals."
Government-approved insurers of US health care law limits competition

Jeffrey Anderson. "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Obamacare." National Review Online. December 23, 2009: "ObamaCare would require Americans to buy government-approved health insurance. It would make it illegal to offer choices in insurance plans beyond the handful of very similar ones that the government would allow. It would become illegal to offer new and innovative plans. [...] Competition and choice would diminish tremendously. One-size-fits-all conformity would rule the day."
2009 US health care reform is historic improvement

Paul Krugman. "Pass the Bill". New York Times Op-Ed. December 17, 2009: "let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail."
Health care bill is too large, complex, convoluted

"Change Nobody Believes In." Wall Street Journal (Editorial). December 21, 2009: "An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later."
2009 health bill is much better than nothing

Joe Biden. "Why the Senate should vote yes on health care." New York Times. December 19, 2009: "The issues in the health reform bill are complicated, but the consequences of failing to pass it are straightforward. Those who would vote no on this bill need to look into the eyes of Americans who don’t have health care now and tell them they’re going to be better off without this bill — better off continuing to live without health coverage. They should explain to all those Americans who are denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions or whose insurance ran out because of lifetime caps that they don’t need this bill. And they should tell the families who have insurance and the small-business owners who provide it that the relentless rise in their premiums without this bill will somehow make them glad it didn’t pass."
Idea of US war crimes in bombing Japan is unacceptable

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC): "A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable."
Invading Japan would have resulted in casualties far beyond bombs

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate. Truman after the war stated that he had been advised that American casualties could range from 250,000 to one million men.[3] Millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected.[4] Millions of women, old men, and boys and girls had been trained to resist by such means as attacking with bamboo spears and strapping explosives to their bodies and throwing themselves under advancing tanks.[5] The Japanese cabinet had approved a measure extending the draft to include men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five (an additional 28 million people).[6] Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the disposal and execution of all Allied prisoners of war, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.[7]
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings made people aware of the effect of atomic bombs

. What were the pros and cons of the atomic bomb being dropped on Japan? "The use of the atom bomb as soon as it was implemented, most likely prevented its use when it would have been totally catastrophic for the entire planet. The main reason why it has never been used in anger ever since, and hopefully never will be, is because of how the human kind has already seen the horrors it causes."
A speedy end to WWII was critical in saving lives

Supporters of the bombing also argue that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asians alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners."
Many military men advised that bombing Japan was unnecessary

General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years - "In 1945 Secretary of War Boob, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[61][62] Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. - The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. - The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.
The bombing of Japan was an act of war/terrorism

Historical accounts indicate that the decision to use the atomic bombs was made in order to provoke an early surrender of Japan by use of an awe-inspiring power. These observations have caused some commentators to state that the incident was an act of "war terrorism". Michael Walzer wrote, "... And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."[7]
Atomic bombs were unnecessary; Japan was looking for peace

Rob Edwards. "Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda". NewScientist.com. 21 July 2005 - "According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb."
Soviet victories in Manchuria were core cause of Japanese surrender.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945, though the War Council did not know the extent of the losses to the Soviets in China at that time.
Atomic bombs were a just response to Japan's total war tactics

Supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote: "We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in boobs principle cannot complain of war against civilians."[1]
The bombing of Japan was illegal under the international law of the time.

In 1963 the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State.[43] On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."
Japan would not have surrendered without being bombed first

Professor of history Robert James Maddox. - "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions" "That the militarists would have accepted such a settlement before the bombs is farfetched, to say the least."[3]
Many Americans wondered why Japan wasn't bombed earlier

Victor Davis Hanson. "Considering Hiroshima." National Review. August 05, 2005 - "in August 1945 most Americans had a much different take on Hiroshima, a decision that cannot be fathomed without appreciation of the recently concluded Okinawa campaign (April 1-July 2) that had cost 50,000 American casualties and 200,000 Japanese and Okinawa dead. Okinawa saw the worst losses in the history of the U.S. Navy. Over 300 ships were damaged, more than 30 sunk, as about 5,000 sailors perished under a barrage of some 2,000 Kamikaze attacks.
Bombing Japan was ethical in context of the horrors of WWII

WWII was the worst war the world has ever seen. By the end of this war, there was hardly any boundary between right and wrong anymore. War had become, on all sides, total war. It is for this reason that there was very little revulsion to the bombing of Japan at the time of the action. In the whole context of the bloodiest war in world history, bombing Japan was not that bad.
Bombing Japan was justified in the post-Okinawa context

Victor Davis Hanson. "Considering Hiroshima." National Review. August 05, 2005 - "These are the debates that matured in the relative peace of the postwar era. But in August 1945 most Americans had a much different take on Hiroshima, a decision that cannot be fathomed without appreciation of the recently concluded Okinawa campaign (April 1-July 2) that had cost 50,000 American casualties and 200,000 Japanese and Okinawa dead. Okinawa saw the worst losses in the history of the U.S. Navy. Over 300 ships were damaged, more than 30 sunk, as about 5,000 sailors perished under a barrage of some 2,000 Kamikaze attacks.
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was cynically about deterring USSR

Rob Edwards. "Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda". NewScientist.com. 21 July 2005 - "The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.