BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve

Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion(in most of the northern hemisphere) and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most western countries. It may still be useful in parts of the world where women still lack basic democratic and other rights. However, in western society the feminist cause in no longer needed.
Males Still Dominate the Top Positions

The glass ceiling is extremely variable. The two deciding and overlapping factors, being whether women have children and which profession they are in. Higher numbers of women now going to university may change the number of lawyers, judges, doctors etc in the future. Doctors, barristers, leading scientists, all now contain a significant female percentage. Since 2001 there are more women called to the bar than men.[1] Huge advancements have been made and given positive intervention in the past statistics are now changing. Therefore, the feminist movement has achieved its objective. [1] http://www.lsuc.on.ca/faq.aspx?id=1275
Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech

This again assumes that there is no additional harm attached to the perpetrating of such a crime by an individual who holds these ideas, which there demonstrably is (though the inflicting of terror on one specific community). Moreover hate crimes themselves are a violation of the right to freedom of speech; a person does have the right to express themselves, but not in a way that would prevent others from exercising their own rights. A hate crime is the ultimate attempt to limit another's freedom of expression. A hate crime is an attempt to silence the very idea that a particular person has the right to exist or to live a particular lifestyle. Therefore, in order to uphold the first amendment, hate crime enhancements are not only just, but are in fact necessary.
Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions

In almost every case where hate crimes are committed, the communities involved already perceive themselves as distinct and opposed, mostly because they already believe that their communities have been sundered by structural inequalities and hate-motivated crimes. Simply ignoring hate crimes will not make these communities stop perceiving them. Rather, it could lead to some communities feeling that their concerns and grievances are not being properly addressed, and lead to more inter-community violence as they seek to ensure 'justice' is done by their own hands.
Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes

It isn't necessarily true that hate crime enhancements really do deter hate crimes or help fight recidivism. Those committing hate crimes would face significant deterrents (in the form of legal sanctions, including prison time) for the crimes they commit even without the enhancements, so it seems unlikely that the addition of a few more years on their sentence, for example, would make a large difference to them when considering committing a crime. Moreover most hate crimes are based on irrational hatred and prejudice, and thus are unlikely to be rationally considered in a risk analysis as this argument supposes. In terms of rehabilitation, it should be noted that prisons are frequently places of racial and sectarian tension, with violent prison gangs built on ethnic and other identities, and thus hardly seem the place to counteract such prejudices.(4)
Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently

Hate crime enhancements are unjust because they respond to two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge solely on the concrete actions of the aggressor in order to prevent punishments from being based on arbitrary judgements as to an offender’s “intent”, which can be very difficult to prove. Otherwise “intent” may be supposed or argued in cases where it did not exist, leading to perverse sentencing whereby a crime is punished more harshly despite the true absence of intent. There is a danger of unjustly branding someone as bigoted and punishing them excessively, e.g. for their involvement in a bar fight where the victim coincidentally belonged to a minority group. Juries might also be willing to make the logical leap that, because the aggressor was proved to hold bigoted views in general towards his victim's ethnic group, these views must have motivated his actions in this individual incident, despite the absence of any evidence linking the specific brawl in a bar to the aggressor's views. Therefore it is unjust to punish two crimes with equal effects differently on the highly subjective basis of “intent”, and thus hate crime enhancements are unjust.
Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech

Hate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being. To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate (an idea) is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by prejudice hate. This is unjust because the idea itself does not cause harm, and is in fact legal in most cases (with the exception of direct incitement to violence), as racist or prejudiced statements and ideas are not illegal in most western liberal democracies. We allow extreme and prejudiced ideas to be legal because we recognise the value of free speech and open discourse in debating and discussing ideas, so as to best allow for progress in human thought. Hate crime enhancements constitute an attack on this as they make an individual liable for harsher punishments for his actions if he holds certain views, and thus the law unfairly discriminates against these particular viewpoints and not against others, and so hate crime enhancements are unjust.
Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions

By defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.(1) These effects spread beyond the hate crimes themselves. By prosecuting high-profile cases of white hate crimes against blacks, for example, it encourages blacks to see themselves as part of a distinct community different from the white community and whose relations are marked by crimes committed by one against the other. This is especially true when one community seems to perpetrate more hate crime (or at least more convictions thereof are secured) against another community than visa-versa. An analysis of hate crime date from the USA examining how hate crimes against whites are viewed with respect to hate crimes against blacks has  hypothesised that the prevailing view in the minds of the public is that the crime that whites are most likely to commit against blacks is a hate crime, and that it is hard for most Americans to envision a white person committing a crime against a black person for a different reason. The only white people who commit crimes against black people, goes the public belief, are racially prejudiced white extremists, and in contrast the very idea of hate crimes committed against whites is met with scepticism and disbelief.(2) There have been several high-profile cases in the USA where some individuals have argued actual hate crimes against whites were not treated as such as a consequence of such public disbelief.(3) This can lead to an unjust situation where hate crime enhancements are (or are perceived as being) only applied “against” one community by another, despite hate crimes actually being committed by individuals within both communities against other individuals. Therefore hate crime enhancements are unjust.
Hate crimes uniquely harm through terror

Hate crimes should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victim and society is greater. Given that the intent of hate crimes is more malicious than simple premeditative murder; it is just to enhance hate crime laws to reflect stronger punishment. Hate crimes don't merely victimize the individual upon whom violence is inflicted, they also victimize a community or minority group that the hate crime was intended to terrorize. This is why hate crimes frequently include highly public acts such as lynchings in town squares, dragging hate crime victims behind cars along streets inhabited by certain communities, and graffiti on significant buildings -they are intended to send a message. Hate crime-delivered messages limit the freedom of expression and group association of the victim community, thus violating their liberties. For this reason, hate crimes have more victims than other crimes, and subsequently deserver greater punishment.  Moreover, as hate crimes are generally perpetrated against minority groups, and because these minority groups are always in a state of social disenfranchisement; it could be argued that hate crime enhancements are the state's way of attempting to arbitrate equality to minorities by compensating them with laws that will better favour their interests, thus forcibly "balancing the scale" of social equity.
Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes

The additional punishment given to hate crimes under enhancements can help deter people who hold hateful views from acting on them, as they fear going to prison for any amount of time, and so any additional punishment affects their risk calculation before they commit a hate crime. Moreover, increased punishments help prevent those who have perpetrated hate crimes from re-offending through rehabilitation in prison. In cases of crimes motivated by deep hatred, rehabilitation may require increased time and increased effort in order to provide criminals with the correct focus and concentration, and a longer sentence is necessary for this to happen. Hate is not an essential human trait, we are not born hating people, it is a learned factor that can be unlearned when correctly rehabilitated. Therefore hate crime enhancements are just because they help prevent hate crimes and help prevent hate crime recidivism.
Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations

Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mould society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Most governments have already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. To simply leave these issues unaddressed would be to make many communities, especially minority communities, feel that their grievances were ignored and that the state allowed discrimination and violence against them. Such feelings would further polarize communities against each other and make racial tensions and further hate crimes more likely. Therefore hate crime enhancements should be maintained as a way for the state to send a message that it desires tolerance and will not allow crimes based on prejudice to stand un-addressed.
Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups. Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.
Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property.

The opposition present us with a false dichotomy here. It is not true that we have to make a choice between saving lives and protecting cultural property. The hypothetical situation where a site of high cultural and historical value would have to be destroyed in order to provide famine relief or prevent genocide seems slightly far-fetched. However, even if such a choice had to be made, we should still ensure that the destruction of cultural property was a crime against humanity. It is important to set an international precedent for rules of conduct during warfare in order to minimise harms on a large scale, despite the possibility of small, minority cases where going against that law would be beneficial. This is the case, for example, with the laws about targeting civilians in warfare. In order to safeguard the precedent, the law must apply to all situations despite the fact that in certain cases a war could be won more easily by targeting civilians.
The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.

Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rather than from the acts themselves. This is because such acts are committed in a highly discriminatory manner. They attack peoples’ culture, their beliefs, their traditions and their very identity and brand them as illegitimate and often as enemies of the state. This is a form of oppression could certainly class as serious “mental injury” which the ICC holds as a criterion for an act to be a crime against humanity. Furthermore, the fact that the prosecution of such crimes does not under the status quo fall under the duties of the ICC is not a reason for why this should not be changed to include them within their duties. The kind of crimes the proposition has been talking about are sufficiently serious and sufficiently harmful to humanity as a whole such that they should be classified as crimes against humanity and they should be prosecuted by the ICC.
Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity.

Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined. Sites of cultural heritage often carry a large degree of aesthetic value. Renowned World Heritage sites like the Coliseum in Rome or the Pyramids of Giza or the Forbidden City in Beijing are truly stunning and constitute a masterpiece of architecture and a celebration of what the human mind and human culture are capable of.  Their stunning beauty alone is sufficient to warrant their protection. However cultural property is more than just aesthetically valuable – they tell a story of human existence. Everything that makes up our society (our moral and aesthetic values, our language, our traditions, our way of life etc.) derives from our ancestors. Cultural property – be it in the form of archaeological sites, monuments or texts and art, provide our only means of connecting with our past. This is invaluable because of the enormous potential for understanding different cultures around the world and how they interact and often conjoin with each other. It offers opportunities for us to learn from the past and forge a better future. Recent atrocities such as the looting of museums in Bagdad and the damage caused to parts of ancient Babylon during the recent Iraq War are hugely harmful to the international community. The loss of part of our world heritage is even greater when one realises that the harms do not only affect our present day society, but all of future humanity. The far-reaching and global nature of this harm is sufficient for it to be considered a crime against humanity. Indeed, ‘international practice in this ﬁeld indicates deliberate extensive destruction of cultural heritage may be included among international crimes’. [1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, ‘places the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion, or of historical and artistic monuments among war crimes (that are part of the broader concept of crimina juris gentium , or crimes against the peace and the security of mankind’. [2] It is therefore evident that despite the lack of a global mechanism (such as the ICC) that currently condemns the destruction of cultural property as crimes against humanity, international precedent with the ICTY suggests it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/619.full.pdf [2] ibid
The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.

Items and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 is another recent example. These were violent, ideologically driven attacks on the part of the state against segments of that states own society. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban simply because they were not part of the Islamic society they were trying to create. Such explicitly discriminatory attacks are particularly harmful to cultures that are the victims of the attacks for two reasons. Firstly because the cultural property in question has increased cultural, religious or historical value for them, and secondly because such discriminatory acts attack the very identity of people part of that cultural group. The international community has a duty to protect cultural groups (especially minority groups) from discrimination. The international community in the form of the United Nations General Assembly has recognised attacks on religious sites as being discrimination based upon belief.[1] Moreover, the ICTY treated discriminatory attacks against cultural property during the break-up of Yugoslavia, as a crime against humanity. Once again, therefore, international precedent facilitates the prosecution of those responsible of those responsible for the desecration or destruction of cultural property. [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’, 19 December 2006, Resolution 61/161, http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm
Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.

Were the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a conflict) to them. Under the status quo, UNESCO conventions alone are insufficient to protect cultural property. Firstly, it provides insufficient protection, since even high-value cultural property under “enhanced protection” can be legally targeted in a conflict, if it is being used by opposition forces. Moreover, the current conventions lack sufficient deterrents to back-up its protective measures. For example, US forces set up military bases in and around ancient Babylon during the Iraq war and even used parts of the ancient site to make sandbags. This constitutes a violation of the UNESCO conventions, because US forces actively caused damage to the cultural property and also, in locating their forces there, made the site of ancient Babylon a legitimate military target for opposing forces. [1] US forces were not concerned with potentially damaging cultural property or going against UNESCO conventions, simply because there were insufficient penalties in place to deter them from doing so. By treating the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity, rather than simply a violation of UNESCO conventions, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as an increased moral imperative. Making such crimes punishable by the ICC alongside crimes like genocide would add a deterrent factor and make it less likely people would deliberately destroy cultural property. [1] CENTCOM Historical/ Cultural Advisory Group: “The Impact of War on Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Operation Iraqi Freedom”, accessed 20/9/12, http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/chp04-12iraqenl.html
Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces.

The current UNESCO conventions are correct in allowing for the possibility of a waiver on our international duty to protect cultural property should a case of military urgency arise. The Proposition argue for the implementation of overly-rigid international legislation. Although, of course, world cultural heritage should be protected, it is short-sighted to not even allow the possibility of military necessity to outweigh our duty to protect high-value cultural property. The UNESCO conventions already dictate that one can only be justified in attacking or targeting a site of cultural heritage if ‘there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage’ [1] Therefore, the proposition are only making a difference to cases where there is no feasible alternative available. This could prove disastrous and create a significant limitation on the capacity of a state’s armed forces. The danger becomes increasingly apparent when one considers that it is highly unlikely that extremist opposing forces and insurgents like the Taliban will adhere to such international law. This is particularly crucial given that the majority of wars fought now by the west are against insurgencies. Such opposing forces will disregard the new international law and endeavour to exploit this to gain a strategic advantage over Western forces. Insurgents may deliberately choose to hide, locate their base or just pass through sites of high cultural value to ensure their safety from western airstrikes and attacks. Allowing this to take place would severely hamper the ability of the west to fight against insurgencies (an already incredibly difficult task in itself). For example in 2000 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants attacked the Red Fort, which was at the time was in part a barracks for the Indian army, killing three in a shootout within the fort. [2] The Red Fort is itself today a world heritage site; would this mean that were a similar attack to happen the Indian security services could do nothing to counter the attack? [3] [1] UNESCO, “Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage”, 17 October 2003, accessed 20/9/12, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [2] BBC News, ‘Police hunt Red Fort raiders’, 23 December 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1083710.stm [3] UNESCO, “Red Fort Complex”, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/231