BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Freedom of expression is essential for women

The consent women supposedly show in the pornographic industry is no more valid than it is considered in prostitution or sex trafficking. Non-pornographic actresses are often coerced into pornography by their agents or producers. The pornographic industry preys on vulnerable parties: poor, psychologically vulnerable, or dependent people. Furthermore, even if some do give full consent, this does not apply to all the women who are forced into prostitution or pornography, raped, sexually harassed, or generally oppressed as a result of the harms produced by pornography. Pornography makes the emancipation of women from men impossible, and the feminist movement cannot condone it even at the expense of a few women who want to express themselves. Other safer forms of art exist for this purpose.
Pornography liberates women

It is simplistic to assume that the problems women face now, are the same that they faced in the 1920’s. All they have in common is that, in some sense, women are used for men’s ends. In the 1920’s it was primarily as housewives, but now, it is as sexual objects. The kinds of images of women employed in advertisement and most kinds of media testify to this, and in pornography these views are expressed in a particularly forceful way. Furthermore, it is a misconception to say that pornography can lead to revolutionary gender stereotypes when fundamentally it depends on stereotypes, the sexy teacher/nurse/friends’ mother being common themes. Through pornography, the best women can achieve is to jump through one label to another. Why? Because it is an industry fundamentally controlled by men, for men. As a result, furthermore, there can be no self-expression when you are doing what a director (often male) tells you to do. Even if the feminist movement has in fact succeeded in promoting their values in a portion of pornographic films, this will have no effect if people do not watch it. There is nothing to indicate that soft, female-friendly pornography will be more appealing to men than what is currently all over the net: over 100,000 sites offer illegal child pornography, and over 10,000 hard-core pornography films are released every year and the numbers increase exponentially (Techmedia Network).[1] [1] Techmedia Network. Internet Pornography Statistics. TopTenReviews, n.d. http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html
Attempting to ban it would only cause further problems

Even if achieving a fully effective ban is impossible, it is the responsibility of the feminist movement to take a stance and not condone practices that harm women in practice and promote dangerous messages. Making it illegal will limit it at least an extent, and due to all the harms pornography causes the smallest improvement is an important goal. It is an exaggeration to claim pornography would have such an effect. The reasons for banning pornography would be the same as for banning prostitution (coercion issues for the participants) and other forms of media that incite to directly offensive acts towards particularly vulnerable people. It is, rather, the actual sexual culture and view of people’s relationships promoted by pornography that leads to higher levels of rape and harassment.
The feminist movement should not allow women to sell themselves

In most cases, pornography is not entered into willingly. Similarly to prostitution, the sale of one’s own body and one’s dignity is so drastic that consent is often not sufficiently informed to be legitimate. There are patriarchal structures in society that force women into these industries, particularly when they are vulnerable and this seems to be a good last resort. This leads to a loss of integrity, a strong stigma in society, and most importantly, abusive conditions in the production process. As well as high risks of unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, violent sex practices and abusive conditions after filming often occur (Lubben).[1] Furthermore, the harms of pornography do not exclusively affect the consenting participants. Other women across the world who are not supporting this industry are equal victims of society and the norms promoted by pornography of how women should be, and how it is acceptable to treat them. These people have not consented. [1] Lubben, Shelley. “Ex-Porn Star Tells the Truth About the Porn Industry.” Covenant Eyes. 28 October 2008. http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/28/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-about-the-porn-industry/
Porn is inherently dehumanising

Pornography necessarily objectifies people: it presents a sexual desire, an urge, which is immediately attended by another person, often performing acts which we would find demeaning, until the original urge is satisfied. The use of others for pleasure treats them as means to one’s own ends, and denies them any value as rational subjects with a will of their own. This affects, naturally, the participants in pornography, but also their viewers who adopt corrupted notions of what to value in others, and furthermore other women who are later affected by men using the same metric to interact with them.
Pornography fuels unreachable ideals

Pornography presents a distorted perception of people, sexuality, and relationships, which has a further effect on a broader societal level. It promotes unreachable ideals of how both women and men should be in bed, and pushes both in the direction of what is idealised in pornography. This may push men to be more dominating than otherwise and women to suffer from anorexia, low self-esteem, and promiscuity. We can expect women to be the most affected by this, simply because the porn industry is owned almost entirely by men, and because there are pre-existing patriarchal structures in society ready to promote the idea that women are there to serve men. Altogether, pornography merely promotes a new stereotype: that women are generally happy to have sex at any time, that they will respond positively to any man’s advances, and if a woman does not, there is something wrong with her.
Pornography eroticises violence

Many forms of media are often accused of inciting violence, promoting stereotypes, or indoctrinating in some form or another. While this is contentious, the key principle that ‘sex sells’ is more obvious. Pornography is not like other media in that, while most other films are aimed at entertainment, this is aimed at arousal. That is, it is aimed at immediate and fully selfish pleasure, which is much more forceful and addictive than mere laughter. The psychological effect of pornography is harmful due to the associations it conditions its audience to make. It eroticises violence through portrayals (fake or genuine) of rape and a general treatment of women that is comparable to torture, yet presented in a context that necessarily biologically excites its viewers. Through continuous exposure to the link between abuse and intense pleasure, this link is easily extended to personal relationships. The master-slave dialectic suddenly becomes acceptable. Compulsive rapists, such as Ted Bundy, are often found to have consumed mass amounts of pornography (Benson).[1] More subtle, yet certainly still present is the force of such associations on young teenagers who have not yet had a sexual relationship and rely on pornography for guidance. This has a potentially massive impact given that 11 is the average age of first internet porn exposure (Techmedia Network).[2] [1] Benson, Rusty. “Vile Passions.” AFA Journal August 2002. http://www.afajournal.org/2002/vile_passions.asp [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award. http://internet-filter-reliew.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html
Freedom of expression is essential for women

Social movements should limit themselves to pushing for the rights of social groups, not restricting them. The feminist movement, as a social movement, should not limit the voices of women in the same way their oppressors have throughout history. Banning pornography would directly restrict the freedom of choice of women who want to manifest their sexuality and express themselves in revolutionary ways in art and media. Examples such as amateur and improvised porn, which are independent of a director, show the deep value of self-expression and self-definition women can find in this form of art. The desire of some actresses to become internationally recognised as ‘sex symbols’, become porn stars, or simply convey that sex is for women too, is a legitimate one, and not an act of desperation. This must be taken into account in cases of pornography between consenting adults, for consenting adults.
Consent Laws are discriminatory.

The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females[1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females.[2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former.[3] [1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html [2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California, http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/Health_Center/adolhealth/index.php [3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm
We must protect the vulnerable in society.

Even if we can accept that children need protection from sex, is it right to use the full force of the criminal law – which includes the threat of criminal prosecution and the prospect of a criminal sentence – to do it? It is contrary to both justice and common sense for people who have merely had consensual sex with a teen who happens to be under-16 to be arrested, tried, branded with a criminal label (‘statutory rapist’, ‘sex offender’), thrown in prison, and thereby treated on the same footing as real (sometimes violent) rapists, arsonists and kidnappers. The debate surrounding the age of consent raises the broader point of the role of the criminal law. The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, not to intervene in the lives of citizens, especially those who have mutually consented to taking part in a harmless activity in private. To accept otherwise would be to disregard the crucial notion of human autonomy and the free will of the individual, which are expressed, regardless of one’s age, each time a person presents his or her consent. This is why it is so important that the law recognises the sanctity of consent.
Lowering the age of consent will cause criminal dangers.

Liberalising age of consent laws will not encourage paedophilia or make sexual exploitation any easier. That is simply a false nightmare scenario propagated by scaremongers. Many countries have lowered the basic age of consent while strengthening their ‘plus elements’. For example, by making ‘sexual grooming’ an offence (to stop rings of internet paedophiles); by making it an offence to have sex with a young child if you are above a certain age or if the age differential between the partners is above a certain limit (to target adult paedophiles while allowing teens their sexual freedom); and by making it an offence to have sex with someone who is in a relationship of trust of dependency with you (to stop sexual exploitation).
We should defend children’s freedom of expression.

The freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression. The concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves.
Consent Laws are discriminatory.

Some countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17.[1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders. [1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm, ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm, HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm
The censorship laws are a relic from the past.

The idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship.[1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since.[2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women. [1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent, http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberten.htm [2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005
Age of consent laws prevent the most vulnerable receiving contraceptives.

Age of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies.
We must protect the vulnerable in society.

Even without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy. The argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations
We must protect the vulnerable from themselves.

It is undeniable that young children form a special and vulnerable group in society. Nowhere is this truer than in the context of sex – so much so that we often need to protect them by placing limitations on what they do sexually. Below a certain minimum age, children are at risk of not having the physiological, biological and, most importantly, emotional development to cope with sex, and with the many possible consequences of having sex, which include teen pregnancy, illegal or legal abortion, childbirth, parental and societal disapproval, unsupported parenthood, legal consequences and increased risk of cervical cancer.[1] Unfortunately everyone matures a different age. That does not mean that choosing an average, approximate age for consensual sex, such as 16, is arbitrary or wrong. There is no great harm in asking “early developers” to wait for a year or two before they begin to have sex. Especially young people are not always as mature as they believe they are. [1] BBC News, ‘Cervical cancer link to early sex’, 21 December 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8420690.stm,
Lowering the age of consent will cause criminal dangers.

Lowering the age of consent (or worse, getting rid of it entirely) legalises, legitimises and brings above ground the many problems that we are fighting underground. It will provide an opportunity for paedophile networks to expand, by allowing them to target even younger children – now lawfully. The problem of paedophilia is already a rapidly growing one, made worse by its expansion into ‘related’ avenues such as child pornography. In addition to the obvious problem of paedophilia, the problem of the sexual predation of young children also encompasses the problem of youth prostitution (since prostitution is itself already legal in many countries), and the international traffic in boys and girls.
Nuclear power has a proven track record in France, Canada and Russia and an increasing role in new energy markets

It is interesting to note that the only places where nuclear energy has provided a dominant share of the national energy market are France, Russia, Canada (specifically Ontario) and now, increasingly China. All of which have heavily centralised energy markets. Indeed the correlation between bureaucracy, the possession or desire for a nuclear arsenal and the use of overpriced nuclear energy appears to go beyond coincidence.
The nuclear industry has constantly required government bailouts and has never been commercially viable in an open market

The nuclear industry is always keen to point out how cheap it is to produce a therm of energy through splitting an atom. However, these figures tend to leave out a few details such as the decade of taxpayer’s dollars it takes to build a nuclear plant in the first place or the 20,000 years it takes to reprocess the fuel rods afterwards. In every nation with a civil nuclear industry, the tax payer has been paying through the nose to keep it running. Even with all of this support, the price of nuclear industry is still not competitive. In the US alone the bill is running at over $150m in hard cash[i], when British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) had to start facing up to the costs of reprocessing its spent fuel in 2001, the British government was required to underwrite the cost of 2.1 billion pounds in that year with an anticipation of ten times that during the forthcoming years. The alternative would have been bankruptcy for the entire industry[ii]. [i] Mark Hertsgaard. "The True Costs of Nuclear Power". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006 [ii] Rob Edwards. “Taxpayer bailout bankrupt nuclear plants; leaked BNFL report”. Sunday Herald. 14 July 2002.
The nuclear industry is constantly judged on criteria that do not take its externalities into account

Nuclear puts great store on the fact that it is a ‘clean fuel’ however this assessment tends to ignore several factors in terms of social and other costs. Although much attention has been given to the possible harm of dealing with fuel rods at the end of their life, much less is given to the mining of Uranium in the first place. To take one of many examples, in 2006 the Navajo nation won a lengthy legal fight to prevent Uranium mining ever taking place on their land. Similar efforts by communities in Latin America have been less successful. The industry bears none of the costs for the illnesses, poisoned rivers, fatalities and other costs of this process[i]. [i] Laurie Fosner. “Uranium Mining in the Navajo Nation”. Sprol. 20 June 2006
It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future

Were humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.
There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market

Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area. Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.
Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements

The renewable sector is a rapidly changing market moving in between micro-renewables and massive offshore projects. It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field but it lacks stability both in terms of technology and investment. Realistically nuclear power is going to have to play an important role in bridging the gap – at the very least – on the road away from a carbon dependent economy[i]. The technology and funding is simply not in place for any renewable technology to take up the hard lifting from oil and coal yet. [i] G Paschal Zachary. “The Case for Nuclear Power”. SFGate (San Fransisco Chronicle). 5 February 2006.