BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prohibition prevents harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex

The good of sex when offered as a gift is not the same good when it is bartered.  Taking or offering money cheapens and deforms the good of sexual intimacy, which when shared with many on the open market diminishes its value.  Moreover, while the benefits of commoditized sex are questionable, the harms are significant.  Those who engage in such exchanges diminish their capacity for genuine sexual intimacy, while damaging their physical, emotional, and mental health.  Moreover, the harms of market sexual transactions often affect non-involved third parties, such as the spouses or lovers of sellers and buyers.  Because the harms of market sex are long lasting, though sometimes distant, it is appropriate for society to intervene to prevent these harms.  Markets in sex pose a public health threat, just like markets in dangerous drugs.  Prohibition will reduce the number of people who engage in market sexual transactions, and for those who do participate, there are ways to minimize violations of their rights.
Moral sex requires more than informed consent, and society should uphold moral values

Moral sex requires treating others not merely as a means to our own ends, but as beings with ends of their own.  This means that we are morally required to consider the needs of our sexual partners and not only our own selfish desires.  In market sexual transactions, the client merely pursues the satisfaction of his own desires, and therefore treats the service provider as a means to his own ends. Because prostitution inevitably involves the instrumental and immoral treatment of others, toleration of prostitution involves the toleration of immoral behaviour.  Society should uphold moral values by banning prostitution.
Prohibition does more harm than good

The fact that prohibition cannot prevent prostitution is not an argument against prohibition.  We have laws prohibiting murder, and yet murders happen.  Our laws deter some murders and they express our society’s moral outrage regarding murder.  Similarly, laws prohibiting prostitution deter some prostitution and express our society’s moral condemnation of sex for hire.  These laws do not create harms, rather prostitution itself creates harms, by robbing those who participate of self-respect, and contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is inevitable that laws prohibiting prostitution will make it riskier to engage in prostitution, as this is the purpose of such laws: to provide disincentives to those who might otherwise engage in this activity.
Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy

No person would sell sex unless they were desperate.  To have sex with someone for reasons other than sexual attraction, desire, and affection is repulsive to any sane and mentally competent adult.  People who sell sex are not exercising sexual autonomy, but are giving up their right to sexual autonomy in order to support themselves and their families.  Instead of legalizing sex markets, societies should provide other means of employment and a basic standard of living to all members, so that no one has to resort to prostitution to survive.
Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking

While some sex market transactions are more consensual than others, all sex markets treat people like objects to be used and exploited by others.   Sex should not be turned into work or a business from which some people profit, even when the labor is allegedly voluntary.  Moreover, it is not evident that the proliferation of legal sex businesses would involve the proliferation of sex businesses that acted ethically and responsibly.  If sex businesses could operate in a more lax and permissive environment, many abuses would go undetected.  Because of the already noxious aspects of this industry, abuses such as fraud, deception, and coercion are intolerable.
Markets in sexual services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty

People who engage in market sexual relationships and other forms of casual sex can treat their partners with dignity and respect.  This involves respecting the boundaries that sexual partners communicate to each other, regarding what parts of their lives and themselves they are willing to share.  With different sexual partners we open up in different ways, and people who engage in casual, market sexual relationships might draw different emotional and sexual boundaries in these relationships than in others.  While casual sexual relationships are unlikely to involve commitments of fidelity and exclusivity, they are compatible with the decent and respectful treatment of others if persons in these relationships respect their partners’ rights to privacy, autonomy, and other basic interests.
Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into commodities

Consumers can access the healing capacities of health care providers without coming to regard the people who provide health care as replaceable market goods rather than unique human subjects.  Consumers can access the cooking talents of chefs without coming to regard the people who provide good food as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects.  Sex markets may differ in that the position of consumer and provider is often shaped by gender and other social markers.  But if this is what causes the degradation of the provider into a replaceable and exploitable good, then what needs to change is how positions in this market are shaped by one’s social identity, rather than eliminating sex markets. All markets are structured by social hierarchies. As illegitimate social hierarchies based on gender, race, class, and so on, are dismantled, then this will have beneficial effects on all markets and not just sex markets.
Prohibition does more harm than good

Criminalizing the acts of selling and buying sexual services does not protect those who sell or buy such services, but rather pushes these activities underground. While market exchanges of sexual services involve some risk-taking, the risks are increased and compounded when such markets are prohibited.  When selling and buying sex is illegal, those participating in these exchanges cannot, or simply do not, seek the protection of the law when their rights are violated.   Because crimes against sex workers or their clients are often unreported, and when reported often not investigated, predators and rights violators can take advantage of others without fear of arrest and punishment.  Moreover, because criminalization forces sex work into remote and invisible corners of society, sellers and buyers are less able to insure their safety and protection.  For these reasons, laws criminalizing sex markets amplify the risks sellers and buyers face when they participate in sex market transactions.  The main purpose of criminalizing sex markets is to protect those who enter such markets from harm.  Yet the harms of paying or accepting money for a good that can be legally exchanged for free are far less than the harms that result from the rights violations that often occur (robbery, battery, sexual assault, murder) when sex markets are pushed underground.
Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy

Sexual autonomy means being able to control when, where, and with whom one has sexual relations.  It also means that, at any moment, one may withdraw from a sexual relationship or encounter.  Spouses, lovers, and also strangers have the right to sexual autonomy.  If an adult chooses to engage in sex with other adults who offer material benefits, her right to sexual autonomy is respected as long as she has control over when, where, and with which clients she has sexual relations, and as long as she is mentally competent and is allowed to terminate the agreement at any time.  If markets in sex were to become legal, the rights of providers (and clients) to sexual autonomy would need to be respected.   This means that sex workers would maintain the right to refuse service to any customer, and to discontinue service or employment at any time and for any reason.  Like other workers, sexual service providers would have the right to a safe and healthy work place.  Workers who are drug dependent, or otherwise incompetent or highly vulnerable in the work place, would need to be provided treatment and time off work until they were capable of protecting themselves and others.
Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking

Some markets in sex should be blocked.  Markets that involve child labor, forced labor or sex, and forced migration and detention, should be stopped and those who organize and profit from such markets should be prosecuted.  As with any service, it is critically important that no one is forced to work or to continue working, either through the threat of harm or through fraud and deception.  It is also critically important that children are protected from sexual predators, and are excluded from all aspects of sex businesses.  Forced labor and child sexual abuse involve violations of basic human rights that all societies are expected to protect.  Voluntary, adult sex work is significantly different from trafficking, and law enforcers need to distinguish market exchanges involving consensual sex among adults from market exchanges involving forced sex among adults or involving minors.  By legalizing voluntary, adult sex work, law enforcers and rights protectors could focus their efforts on eliminating markets that involve the sexual abuse of adults or children.  Additionally, clients of sex business would have the choice of patronizing legal business, and therefore would be less likely to patronize inadvertently a business that relies on forced or child labor.
Markets in sexual services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty

Sexual relationships involve crossing ordinary social boundaries that exist between people, and exposing aspects of ourselves that normally remain private.  This aspect of sexual relationships renders the parties vulnerable emotionally and socially, and therefore sexual partners often extract commitments from each other of sexual fidelity and exclusivity.  These commitments allow people to engage in sexual relationships while treating each other with decency and respect.  Markets are public and involve exchanges among strangers.  In markets, goods are exchanged with the highest bidders and not with those to whom we are committed and loyal.  For this reason, markets in sex undermine the ideals of sexual commitment, loyalty, or exclusivity, which makes decent and respectful sexual relationships possible.  Markets are for exchanging shoes and cars, or services that we can separate from ourselves without leaving us emotionally and socially vulnerable or exposed.  Sexual relationships require commitments of fidelity and exclusivity so we don’t lose part of ourselves in the exchange.
Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into commodities

Markets in sex are shaped by values that differ from non-market sexual relationships.  Market sexual transactions are not structured by the ideals of fidelity and exclusivity between social intimates, but rather by the ends of profit maximization and mutual benefit among strangers. The goods exchanged in a market are interchangeable with other goods, in ways that maximize profit and mutual benefit. When these goods include sexual services, the sexual services of one provider will be interchangeable with those of another. The position of seller or buyer in a particular market is often determined by one’s gender, class, race, and nationality.  In sex markets, sellers are typically female, and buyers are typically male.   Race, class, and other social hierarchies also shape one’s position in a sex market.   Because the sellers in sex markets are often people who are disadvantaged by their gender, class, race, or nationality, the existence of markets in their sexual services will promote the idea that the sexual capacities of women (and other disadvantaged groups) are goods that are interchangeable and exploitable.   The idea that the sexual capacities of women (and girls) can be accessed as market goods or commodities will shape attitudes toward women and girls who do not enter sex markets as providers.  In this way, the values that structure markets in sex will spill over into non-market sexual relationships, and lead men to regard women as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects.
Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs

Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex.  These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment.   Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved.  While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it does not follow that we should be able to purchase them.  Having children serves legitimate needs, but we do not think that people should be able to buy children.  Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and the right to sexual autonomy.   Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they have money.  If we allow money to determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then this will lead to unfair distributions.  Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.
Terrorism can lead to discussion

In some cases, terrorism can result in the acknowledgement of certain groups. Therefore, terrorism is justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority.[1] [1] Palestine Facts. (n.d.). Details of the Oslo Accords. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Palestine Facts: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords.php
Terrorism is relative

The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state? There will always be grey areas that might be justified, under the broader definition most armed forces in history could be accused of terrorism particularly acts such as the bombing of cities during World War II. While under the narrower definition the various resisitance groups during the same war would count. Perhaps at a half way house would be independence movements including the American Revolution.
Harm to others is never legitimate

Even in cases of suppression and deprivation of human rights, it is not justified to harm others outside the law. Considering acts of terror, there are three possible targets: civilians, political, military or other powerful authorities and their representatives, and structures such as (government) buildings, cars etc. without any causalities. In the case of the first, it is illegitimate to kill innocent civilians because not only have these people not contributed to the terrorists' marginalization, which means that hurting them will not undo the cause of harm, but this also perpetuates the harm that was the cause for violence in the first place. In the case of the second target, the attack on authorities responsible for the marginalization might be removed in some cases (if there is one), but it more often results in backlash where supporters of the authorities act against the insurgents, resulting in more harm. This happened with the Kurdish revolt against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerilla war with over 30.000 causalities.[1] Thirdly, attacking the infrastructure of a country means disabling the population for accessing their basic capacities such as accessing healthcare by destroying roads or hospitals. Regarding the fact that the population is innocent in the crimes of the government, this is unnecessary and harmful for the whole population. [1]  Washington Post. (1999). Who Are the Kurds? Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm
Exacerbation of poor conditions

Terrorism creates a perpetual situation of poverty and anxiety within the community. Terrorism creates an unsafe situation for the local community, which has several consequences: firstly, people are less able to continue their daily actions, such as going to work or school of they are afraid of attacks. Secondly, people are less likely to save or to take risks such as setting up a business when they are uncertain about the their future. Thirdly, international companies are less likely to set up business in a location which is seen as unstable, and with the local market which has little to spend. This all lead to a continuation of poor conditions where many people live in poverty and anxiety, and see little opportunity than continuing the violence themselves. In Northern Ireland, the political violence which is present, combined with the high rates of poverty, creates a vicious circle where the unstable situation is continued.[1] [1] Horgan, G. (2011, July 12). Equality of misery? Poverty and political violence in Northern Ireland. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Politico: http://politico.ie/crisisjam/7686-equality-of-misery-poverty-and-politic...
Legitimacy

Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. If this cannot happen inside the state, there are international courts such as the International Criminal Court in the The Hague, which handle cases such as war crimes and oppression. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering.
Terrorism can bring attention

Not all attention that follows terrorism is positive. After the 9/11 attacks, aid workers in Afghanistan were forced to cut off food supplies in the country, even though 7 to 8 million civilians were dependent on them.[1] The kind of terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the violent ones, and they are likely to be met with reactions of disgust and grief. This means that the international community is less likely to sympathize with their cause, which results in less support. [1] Chomsky, N. (2001, October 18). Terrorism Works. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Media Monitors Network: http://www.mediamonitors.net/noamchomsky3.html
Consequentialism

The end does not justify the means. Even in cases of oppression, it is better to persecute your interest through non-violent and legal means. There may be cases where only an act of terror will lead to a direct improvement of overall utility, but these cases are very rare. Often terrorist attacks are performed by extremist groups who have views that differ from the majority of the community they claim to represent. Most people prefer non-violent means, and the repercussions of violent terrorist acts, such as the invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban, will largely worsen the position of the marginalized in society.
Terrorism creates a negative abusable portrayal

Terrorism can bring attention to certain causes and bring discussion. Images of violence will make much more of an impact than those of peaceful protest. With the modern media, the power of oppressive states to hide or twist the truth has significantly diminished, as anyone with a cellphone can tell their story. Also, with people taking their faith in their own hands, acts of terror such as sabotage can be seen as clever and resourceful.
Corrupt states

States or institutions created in concession to terror can work, if the process of creation is handled with care and is done with the interests of the whole population at heart. It is true that some terrorist organisations have no political experience, but some have, and these organisations should have a say in the political process, in corporation with representatives of other groups. Modern South Africa is a state created as a result of terrorism, yet it is not a state that would be accused of conducting a violent foreign policy or excessive internal repression, especially when compared to other parts of the continent.
Legitimacy

In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause. Every individual or (minority) group has the right to express its discontent. The state, being a representation of the people, should facilitate this possibility. Even more, the state should support the rights of minorities, in order to prevent the will of the majority suppressing the rights of people with other interests. If this does not happen, the state has failed to serve its purpose and loses its legitimacy. This, in combination with the growing inequalities and injustices amongst certain groups, justifies committing acts of terror in order to defend these rights, that were denied in the first place. For instance, Umkhonto we Sizwe, a liberation organisation associated with the African National Congress in South Africa and led by Nelson Mandela, decided in 1961 to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation and the abolishment of Apartheid. The reason they gave was: “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. (...) Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.”[1] [1]African National Congress. (1961, December 16). Manifesto. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from African National Congress: http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=77