BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Separation of Church and State demands banning the hijab in public schools

"Banning the hijab". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "My starting point is that secularism is a fundamental pillar of socialist politics and therefore socialist organisations must have this at the heart of their programmes and campaigns. This necessitates the demand for the complete separation of the state from religion, which implies that state education must be rigorously secular (this is not to suggest that there should be a complete absence of religion from the curriculum; on the contrary, aspects of all the world's major religions should be taught - but not dogmatic, religious teaching and rituals, and certainly no privilege accorded to Christianity - as well as critiques of religion and the irreconcilability of religious 'truths' with science)."
France is hypocritical in head-scarf-ban "secularism"; funds Christian schools

Sharon Smith. "The racist hypocrisy behind the hijab ban" Socialist Worker. February 20, 2004 - "there is something profoundly hypocritical in banning Islamic religious symbols in the name of secularism and gender equality--while the French government continues to subsidize private education for that other globally influential misogynist religion, the Catholic Church, at a higher rate per pupil than public schools."
Banning head coverings provokes greater extremes of fundamentalism.

Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations.
Banning head scarves in schools protects children from being forced

"Banning the hijab". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "However, even whilst arguing against it, the left should support the right of women to veil themselves. But this right should not be extended to schoolgirls. [it is] a fundamental denial of the rights of a child (some argue that it is, in fact, a form of child abuse). The reality is that there will be cajoling and coercion by parents for girls as young as five to wear the hijab at an age where they will have little clue about their parents' religion (and that is why girls from non-Muslim families, who are free from this, do not wear it). Therefore, an important democratic right - equality with non-Muslim girls - is denied them."
Banning Muslim head scarves will not cause fundamentalist backlashes

"Banning the hijab". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "The third major argument against the ban is that there will be an Islamic backlash as this will drive Muslims into the arms of the religious right. Again, no evidence is ever provided for this assertion. The reality is that within the Muslim ghettos, their grip is already powerful - and it is precisely because of the threat to their influence that they have protested so vehemently over the issue. They know that a secular education is a major threat to their power and control, especially control over ideas. Their indoctrination starts very early - about three years of age - as they systematically try and break children from critical thinking."
Muslim head scarves do not foster a respect for the female body

If women cover-up, how are men supposed to develop a respect for the female body? How are woman supposed to develop a similar respect? In fact, it is clear that men act more sexually oppressively when they never see a woman's body (because woman are veiled), and then suddenly see a woman without such a veil. Instead of fostering respect, veils foster a deprived lust and disrespect for the female body.
Religious freedom has limits; head scarves are outside of protections

Religious freedom has some obvious limits. Religiously-endorsed death-by-stoning, for instance, does not receive the protection of freedom of religion in secular democracies. Therefore, it need only be determined that head scarves are inappropriate and socially harmful in order for it to be banned. Indeed, head scarves are an oppressive, undemocratic, and socially harmful symbol that should not, therefore, receive the protection of "freedom of religion".
Head scarves initiate other forms of oppression in school

"Banning the hijab". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "It is important to stress that veiling not only acts as a barrier to normal relations between veiled Muslim and non-Muslim girls, it is invariably the precursor to other forms of oppression: the drive to gender segregation, restrictions of veiled girls to partake in physical education, especially swimming, or indulge in dancing etc. Moreover, some parents might go further and push their daughters to completely veil themselves, that is, to wear the burqa. If this were unacceptable to opponents of the ban, then why should the hijab be acceptable? For the reasons underpinning both are the same."
Banning head scarves is worse than banning other religious symbols.

While some defend a ban on Muslim head scarves by pointing to bans on other religious symbols, there are important differences between these symbols. The head scarf performs an actual physical function (protecting the dignity of a woman). Crosses and skull-caps do not perform such physical functions. By depriving a woman of a head scarf, you are not merely depriving them of their symbol, but also forcing them to go without a functional religious tool.
Wearing the Hijab makes women more self-conscious, not less

Nadia Gaber. "Why I Won’t Veil". The Harvard Crimson. November 17, 2006 - "It’s ironic—though the justification for the hijab is to make women less preoccupied with their looks, I have never been more conscious about my appearance than I was in Egypt. Because I am of Arab descent, foreign eyes gazed more keenly at me—at how much skin I showed and how much makeup I wore—than they did at my white friends, although their U.S. passports were no bluer than mine."
Many Muslims hide opposition to veil ban to avoid attacks from non-Muslims

Christina Duval. "Banning the hijab. Against the ban, for secular education". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "The quoted 48 per cent of Muslims in France who are in favour of the ban - even if we take opinion polls as accurate reflections of real feelings - has to be put in the context of this offensive, where standing up to this ban leads to Muslims being branded anti-Republic, anti-French and part of the "Islamic threat". In other words, there's no reason to believe that Muslims supporting the ban are less reactionary than those wanting to visibly show their solidarity with the victims of imperialism's wars."
Banning other religious symbols is only a front for targeting Islam

Sharon Smith. "The racist hypocrisy behind the hijab ban" Socialist Worker. February 20, 2004 - "To be sure, the French ban targets not just the hijab, beards and bandanas that denote Islamic affiliation, but also Jewish skullcaps and "conspicuous" Christian crosses (the fate of the Sikh turban has yet to be determined). Nevertheless, few in France--where the press has dubbed the ban "the law against the veil"--believe that the target is anything but Islam."
The idea that women must wear headscarves to be dignified is offensive

The core principle of headscarves is that it protects the modesty and dignity of the woman. This is a nearly universal interpretation of the act. This is an offensive premise. It considers that the physical features of women are inherently offensive in appearance and that men are incapable of containing their sexual impulses upon seeing a woman's natural form. It holds that the only way a woman can be dignified and accepted in society is if she conceals her true identity and form. These are offensive and undemocratic principles and do not belong in a modern democracy.
Muslim women opposition to veils is not adequately represented

Leslie Cannold. "For equality, ban the hijab in public schools". The Age. August 31, 2005 - "It is largely Muslim men who are insisting that "their" girls and young women will be upset, concerned or made fearful by the banning of the hijab from public schools. But given such leaders are rarely democratically elected, little less by a voting base that includes women, how can we know whose interests they really represent?"
Banning head scarves in school is an egregious state intrusion

Christina Duval. "Banning the hijab. Against the ban, for secular education." Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "Youth oppression is not only situated within the family. Under capitalism, education is not the neutral free space that Rumy and the defenders of the French Fifth republic would have us believe. The classroom does not only enlighten, it also instils discipline and allegiance to the bourgeois state. Struggles over the right to choose what to wear are not confined to confrontation with the family - the classroom has also been an important arena for this struggle. To deny the right of Muslim girls to wear the headscarf if they so choose, in the name of secularism, is to side with the oppressive side of French bourgeois republicanism."
"Choosing" to wear head scarves merely internalizes oppression

"Banning the hijab". Workers Power. Feb 2004 - "It is true that many Muslim women willingly wear the veil, but even if this is an expression, or assertion of cultural, religious, and racial identity and self-pride, for example, in response to a hostile, racist environment (rigorous research needs to be done as to why exactly Muslim women in the West do this), it is nonetheless tantamount to their internalising their oppression. As such, it is an oppressive response to their oppression."
Legal incest opens slippery slope to legalizing other behavior

If the proposition are right, and there is fundamentally nothing wrong with incestuous relationships, and that many involving those over the age of consent contain true consensual love between two people, then why exclude the possibility of father/daughter, mother/son, father/son, bestiality, and polygamous relationships? If all the principles they espouse are right, wouldn't forbidding these other relationships be arbitrary, unequal treatment, and discriminatory? Once you open the gate to incest, many other gates will have to be opened as well.
Incest is actually not universally abhorred

"Sexual Ethics: Consensual Incest". A Nadder. October 13th, 2008- "It's universally condemned -- this was also used against interracial marriage etc. Again: so what? And again: no it isn't. It's universal to have some kind of incest taboo, but the limits vary a lot. In many cultures it's common for first cousins to marry (with up to 50% of marriages being between first cousins)."
Bible supports incest and embraces its practice

"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3:20). "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have acquired a man from the LORD.'" (Genesis 4:1) "And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch." (Genesis 4:16) "'Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.'” So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, 'Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.' Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father" (Genesis 19:32-36).
Magnitude of moral abhorrence of incest justifies ban.

The case against incest is certainly not merely biblical, but it exists in almost all religions for the very sound reason that it it undermines so many fundamental values and morals in society: the integrity of the family institution, the integrity of the institution of marriage, the safety of children from abuse and molestation, the health of offspring, among other tangible and moral damages discussed below. There is more than a ‘yuck’ factor to this: but the instinctive ‘yuck’ we feel for some things is often rooted in the fact that it is dangerous or bad for us/those around us. The wisdom of the ages should not be ignored. The overall moral abhorrence of incest justifies society setting a clear moral line against it with a ban.
Incest has same potential for power-abuse as other relationships

Banning incest because of the potential for the abuse of power in family relationships is wrong-headed. The potential for the abuse of power exists in all relationships: between boss and worker, between clever and not so clever. We do not try to control what should happen in those examples, because they are adults, free to live their own lives and make their own decisions. Should the state intervene to stop the union of the Nobel Prize winner and her secretary, or the physically strong construction worker and the physically week office administrator, because of a potential ‘abuse of power’? No. Neither should it be the case with incestuous relationships. Additionally, there is no defined power relationship--in any other aspect of life--between a father and adult daughter or between a mother and adult son. As they are legally equals in all other aspects of life there is no reason to treat them as anything other than equals in the area of sexuality.
Religion should have no role in incest law

"Inbred obscurity: improving incest laws in the shadow of the "sexual family". Harvard Law Review. June 2006 - "Religion also does not provide a viable rationale for incest prohibitions. Based on current Establishment Clause doctrine, a predominant religious purpose would render incest prohibitions constitutionally invalid, 33 especially because those prohibitions trench on constitutionally protected activities such as marriage and sexual intimacy.34"
Inbreeding is immorally bad for society over time.

The children of incestuous parents are much more likely to see incest as acceptable and to, therefore, engage in incest themselves. The problem with this is that second-generation incest is even more likely to involve medical and genetic problems. Third-generation incest is even more risky, and so on. Therefore, incest is an unsustainable social model. To this extent, a ban on incest is good social, public policy. And, to the extent that incest is bad for society and its collective interests, incest is immoral.
Incest law should not be framed by bad-apple scenarios.

The case against incestuous couples relies too much on speculation about worst-case scenarios in which poor judgment and corrupt morals lead to abuse in the relationship. Yet, most of these problems have nothing to do with incestuous couples specifically and could apply to any family. In any family, one family member could be abusive. In any relationship, one member could abuse power and possibly force another member into sex without consent. It is wrong, therefore, to cite abuse in incestuous families as an example of the corruption of incest itself, when such abuse is consistent with what occurs in traditional families as well. It is important to, instead of considering bad-apple scenarios, to consider if incest can be just in isolation of unrelated issues. This means that the best-case scenarios (in which all else is equal) should be considered for the purpose of developing incest law. This reveals that there are many successful, happy, and fairly ordinary incestuous couples and families living in society today, and that a ban is unnecessary.
Evolutionary emotions against incest don't make it immoral

Larry Arnhart. "So What's Wrong with Incest?". Darwinian Conservatism. October 7, 2006 - "the natural aversion to incest among most human beings is so strong that we formulate moral and legal norms against incest and enforce them as expressions of our natural emotional dispositions [...] We can see how reason comes into play here. We might, for example, call on our knowledge of the genetics of inbreeding to rationalize our abhorrence of incest. But this is only a rationalization of a moral abhorrence that causes our moral condemnation of incest as an expression of moral emotion."
Consensual adult incest should not be confused with abusive incest

It is easy to confuse adult incest with abusive forms of incest; such as intragenerational incest between a father an his 14 year-old daughter. Incest between consenting adults is much different than these abusive forms of incest, which are wrong and will always remain unlawful. The proposal is only to legalize consensual adult incest, keeping all other laws in place to check abusive, non-consensual acts.
Religion's impact on morals must be considered in incest ban.

While it is true that there is a separation between church and state and that religion cannot play a direct role in the law on incest, this does not mean that it cannot be weighed for its significance in creating the moral foundations of modern society. Indeed, the moral beliefs of a public are relevant in considering what should be morally tolerable and morally intolerable under the law. Therefore, to the extent that the Bible (and other faiths) plays a role in modern moral thought, the Bible's condemnation of incest should favor a ban.
Incestuous couples love one another the same as other couples

You can’t help with whom you fall in love. As a matter of fact, many adult siblings and fathers and daughters strongly profess their love for one another. Why should this kind of love be taboo? Why should these people not be able to deepen their relationship? Patrick Stubing, who is engaged in an incestuous relationship with his sister in Germany (where incest is illegal), said: "We've done nothing wrong. We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family."[10]
That incest is "unnatural" does not make it immoral

"Sexual Ethics: Consensual Incest". A Nadder. October 13th, 2008 - "It's unnatural -- the same old line's been used to prove the immorality of homosexuality, interracial marriage, contraception etc. Sorry. The answer's always "so what?" (being unnatural doesn't make something bad) and "no it isn't" (eg. 10–15% of college students reported some childhood sexual contact with a brother/sister)."
Incest frequently involves abuse of power in family relationships

Many sibling relationships involve considerable power. Much older siblings have power over younger siblings. When one or both parents die or are ill or are often away from the family unit, an older sibling often takes on a pseudo-parental role in nurturing and caring for the younger. This is more important than other power relationship parallels, such as boss-worker, since in this one children can be groomed so that when they reach adulthood their impression of sexuality is distorted to the degree that they cannot but approve of incest. The age restriction may prevent penetrative sex between siblings when one or both are underage (but given that it will be seen as less serious in an environment in which incest is approved, even this is less certain). However, kissing and cuddling (in a different context, the natural displays of familial affection) can be used over years on an underage person to ensure that their view of sexuality is firmly based on a sexualised family environment and to ensure that, by the time they do come ‘of age,’ that they are firmly on the path to commit incest.
Hereditary risk of incest are same as some other couples

"Inbred obscurity: improving incest laws in the shadow of the "sexual family". Harvard Law Review. June 2006 - "The rationale based on genetics is also suspect under current law: even setting aside nonprocreative intimate relationships, in no other legal realm does the government criminally prohibit two people from having children because their offspring are more likely to inherit genetic defects.30 Even though the risks of birth defects among the most closely related family members are significant,31 eugenics on the basis of physical or mental deformity has long been repudiated."
Genetic screening undermines "risk" argument against incest

Joanna Grossman. "Should the law be kinder to 'kissin' cousins?". Find Law. April 8, 2002 - "More generally, scientific advances that enable doctors to screen for many potentially harmful genes may render general presumptions about genetic risks, like those embodied in marriage bans, inappropriate. When a particular individual can know his or her specific risk of passing on dangerous genes to children, how can a presumption as to the average person's general risk of doing so constitutionally be applied?"
We all descend from common relatives, so all sex is "incest"

"Sexual Ethics: Consensual Incest". A Nadder. October 13th, 2008 - "On another note, incest is only a matter of degree. We're all related, descending from a common evolutionary ancestor, so everyone on earth is some cousin of yours. Sometimes a close one if you live on an island. It's an evolutionary quirk to distinguish between the in-group (largely relatives) and out-group, as if there's something fundamental about these 2 groups."
Legalizing incest increases the risks of abuse.

Those most likely to take up the ‘opportunities’ offered by this change in the law live in remote, isolated places where abuse is even more likely to be successfully concealed. The recent case of repeated sexual abuse on the island of Pitcairn demonstrates the dangers of small societies determining their own moral agenda. This kind of abuse becomes much more likely when the state sanctions some of the acts concerned, as the argument becomes about lack of consent, which is much more difficult to prove, than about incest itself.
Homosexuality is more benign than incest on the family.

Homosexuality does not have a direct impact on how family members interact with one-another. Incest, conversely, allows for disruptive sexual interaction between parents and their offspring as well as between siblings. This fundamentally damages the traditional nurturing function of family. For this reason, legal homosexuality and even gay marriage do not set a precedent for legalizing adult incest or incestuous marriage.
Legalization would approve incest and increase it.

Legalizing incest does more than acknowledge it – it legitimises it with a mark of state approval. The costs of legitimizing incest in this way are quite large for the state and society. First, by making the practice appear acceptable, the state actually may encourage incestuous relationships within families between brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and son, and between cousins. It makes it possible for individuals to move from considering incest as entirely unacceptable to considering it a socially-acceptable possibility. This significant shift will doubtlessly open incestuous doors that were once closed, encourage experimentation in incest, increase cases of abusive incestuous relations, and a general increase the number of incestuous relationships. Such a result is undesirable, so the state has a direct interest in preventing it by maintaining a ban.