BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lack of access to contraceptives is not the main reason for unprotected sex

While we should try and alter people's attitudes towards sex ,to do so without improving access to condoms means that there is one area where government or societies provision is falling short and possibly causing teen pregnancies to rise . By at improving access to contraception we're at least using all the options society has at it's disposal and hitting the problem of teenage pregnancies with everything we've got so the number of teenage pregancies is as small as it can be.
Teenagers are obsessed with being sexual

Young people are obsessed with sex. They see it is a way of proving how adult they are, a way of having fun, and they want to try it because they’ve heard so much about it. They are also at an age when they think they know it all and won’t listen to others. They’re having spontaneous sex and they’re oblivious to risks. The very least we can do in this situation is to try and make contraception normal and easily accessible.
poor access to contracptives is not the main problem

having read articles and watched documentaries on the subject, i completely disagree with the subject of this debate. Not having access to contraceptives is not the major cause of teenage pregnancy. Apart from all the other 'no' points, another contributor is the immature attitude of teenagers have to sex, with excuses ranging from 'I forgot to take the pill' to ' i didn't think you could get pregnant if you just did it once'. the fact is teenagers know all about their rights and not about their responsibility. 'Yes you may get away with underage sex but do you fully understand the consequence of your actions?' and let's face it, Sex Education in Secondary schools doesn't really touch on the subject. Making contraception easier to access shouldn't be the major priority, what should be the priority is making teenagers fully understand the consequences of unprotected sex or even underage sex...... from getting pregnant to STIs and STDs.
Huge burden on society

The problem of teenage pregnancies is one which affects all of society. Teenage pregnancies add a huge burden to housing and welfare – let alone the problems the child may encounter being raised by people who have little experience of the world and are little able to provide for him or her. Contraception is not the only answer but it is an answer. Making access to contraception more difficult would be a ludicrous idea. Why then, is the opposite equally ludicrous?
No it has proved opposite.

Since sex education and access to contraception was introduced a decade ago the problem has deteriorated. They know what its about earlier than us older ones did. A 15yr old girl this week said she did not know the father was 11 although she knew his school was a primary school. She knew he was 11 but its all too easy now and society has let them know that its ok, and someone else will pay for the child, the taxpayer.Because of the misguided sex education it has given the children the acceptability to do it. They know they can get contraception they are taught it, but choose not to because they can. Can our govenors not put their childish memories back into gear ? and recall their way of learning ? because the system we have now is'nt.
Lack of knowledge diminishes effectiveness of contraceptives

Teenagers cannot be expected to know about contraception when they begin sexual experimentation. Oftentimes contraception is used incorrectly, which causes them to be ineffective. Misinformed youth can often take unnecessary risks because they are unaware of the potential consequences of their actions. The best way to educate youth on this matter is to make contraceptives readily available, along with the necessary information that they need to know, so that they can make their own informed decisions and act responsibly.
understanding why teenagers turn to their desire

Young people feel trapped. They haven't got any freedom because mistakes they have made in the past have made adults around them question their trust. So to feel alive and feel like they can do something without being told they turn to their desire, wich includes boys. They'll find out that their friendsz have done something at everything turned out fine so they feel like they should try it and in the end, their situation turns out worst than their friendsz and they would end up pregnant but indefence adults just attack them after it and keep them in the house trapped and alwaysz angry at them when they find out and it would just make the the kids go out and do worst because it was lack of trust and freedom that brought them in that situation in the first place. I don't think that if you make contraception more available it would lower the level of teenage pregnancy because once the lack of trust and freedom starts they would turn to their desire more quickly because they know that a backup is available more easily.
Teenagers are obsessed with being sexual

Young people do not listen to adults because too much focus has been given to meeting their needs. They think the world revolves around them when they should be taught the need to be good citizens. We don’t need to become more liberal with children, we need to become more strict. We need to start teaching them that they are responsible for their actions and will suffer if they do something wrong. Only then can we turn the tide of the type of behaviour that no civilised society should bear
Lack of access to contraceptives is not the main reason for unprotected sex

In the instances where unprotected sex happens it is usually because the parties involved have taken alcohol or other drugs, or else the man thinks it is 'uncool' to use protection. Increasing the number of condoms won't prevent these incidences from occurring - they will always happen anyway. What we need to do is tackle some of the wider issues and problems affecting youth, and trying to alter their attitudes.
It gives them wrong information.

Improving access to contraception does not have to have anything to do with the information they are given - this can be separately changed surely? Improving access to contraception in itself is unlikely to give any individual child a particular message - will they really know that their access is improving? Having the possibility of contraception as you say may lead to a belief that they can have sex and ignore the consequences (which is understandable because most of the time it is true) but if this is the reality then how are they getting the wrong impression? If teenagers don't have access to contraception then there is a much bigger danger that they believe that they do have access (because they know of its existence and their is information about it all over the place) when in reality they don't.
The onus should not be on punishing the criminal.

The criminal should be punished only in so far as it is necessary to compensate everyone who has been deprived of something because of the crime. The criminal should be made aware that they owe something, what and who they owe, that they are going to pay it back whether they like it or not and that taking it from the person will only result in them having to compensate the person again. Anything more is a waste of time, anything less means that the work isn't done yet. By owing a debt I include non-material debts such as health and psychological damage, actual lives, time wasted etc. I also do not mean that I think the criminal should pay with their own phsyical health, life, time etc. because this doesn't actually lead to anybody being compensated, just to more people suffering. In summary, the compensation should fit the debt, not the punishment fit the criminal.
It will cause less re-offenders.

What exactly is the justice system supposed to do about the situation even if they do know? Directly intervene in every criminal's personal life? Keep them all in prison until society has improved to the point where they won't be given a reason to re-offend? Changing the punishment isn't the solution. Social services, doctors and psychiatrists, the people in Government responsible for conditions getting this bad, along with the criminal themselves who made bad choices in their lives, all have to work together, make sure they do their jobs well and don't try and do each other's jobs.
punishment does fit the criminal in the sense that every accused person is tried in court

before being locked up or sentenced to being locked. Therefore the punishment is catered/tailored/wound around the individual situation,circumstance,psychological state/position of the criminal and customised accordingly. The punishment may be standard but leniences are made if the jkudge thinks they need to be and the time period of the sentence that criminals must serve is also decided by judge and jury for each specific case. however different punishments may suit different criminals; a different form of retribution may be called for for different people.
if a criminal is a masochist

Feeding someone's psychological problems, whether or not the person thinks of it that way, can only damage them. The pleasure they feel is self-destructive, so enhancing that pleasure furthers the cause of their destruction. I don't think you fully understand masochists. Granted, i'm not one, nor do i know any, but honestly, sexually appealing or not, cutting someones hands off will hurt and give you less of an ability to actu upon sexual desires. You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that while someones hacking away at your wrists. Let alone the fact that (perhaps youre in a different country) we do not chop peoples hands off or beat them, but rather lock them away, which makes your argument invalid to begin with.
We already accept the ethic of private healthcare. It is not unreasonable that the seriously ill be ...

We already accept the ethic of private healthcare. It is not unreasonable that the seriously ill be entitled to spend their own money on saving their own lives. It is preferable that some individuals receive organs, and survive, than none at all. There is a spurious equality in everybody dying.The wealthy will not be the sole beneficiaries of a policy of organ purchase. For each successful kidney transplant operation, valuable hours on a dialysis machine will be left vacant. The expense of palliative care for an individual requiring a transplant operation will be eliminated.
The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit considerably from the sale. Even the mos...

The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit considerably from the sale. Even the most impoverished individual will not choose to donate their heart or lung and thus die. Neither would a surgeon be prepared to conduct such an operation. Yet, both a kidney and a piece of liver can be removed without significant detriment. It is patronising to consider that the individual cannot make a reasoned decision to donate or sell these organs. The family of a relative recently deceased ought also to be able to choose to save the life of another and simultaneously receive some remuneration.
The specific virtues of a scheme of sale of organs is that each transaction remains one of personal ...

The specific virtues of a scheme of sale of organs is that each transaction remains one of personal consent, and an incentive is provided to donate organs. ‘Presumed consent’ is a euphemism for robbery. The donor card scheme, by which individuals carry a card indicating their intention to donate organs is scarcely a difficult or unknown means of showing true consent. In the wake of the public outrage in early 2001 following the practice at Alder Hay Hospital of removing organs from deceased children without the consent of the parents, it is evident that a system of presumed consent would be unacceptable. The victims of the system would be a family already grieving for the loss of the relative.Any improvements to the efficiency of the donor and transplant arrangement cannot compensate for the simple absence of organs. The sale of organs would increase the number available at home and allow surgeons to search for the parts overseas.
A legitimate market in human organs would not be inconsistent with either public or private healthca...

A legitimate market in human organs would not be inconsistent with either public or private healthcare services. The transplant surgeon, the nursing staff and even the pharmaceutical companies producing the anti-reaction drugs receive payment for each operation performed. Why should the donor of the organs, arguably the most important actor in any transplant, not also receive remuneration ? The United States already tolerates markets for blood, semen, human eggs, and surrogate wombs. Is there a moral difference between a heart or a lung and an ovum ? It is remarkable that a lifesaving treatment should apparently have no financial value.
We already accept the ethic of private healthcare. It is not unreasonable that the seriously ill be ...

There is no question of a state financed health service being able to afford the prohibitive cost of purchase of organs. It is believed that a single kidney has a black market price of $20,000. Consequently, the sale of organs will condone the most gross discrimination between rich and poor. The opportunity for those unable to afford to purchase to receive a donated organ will be eliminated. Which family, if prepared to donate the organs of a relative, would decide to decline an ex gratia payment of tens of thousands of pounds ?There will not be a two-tier market consisting of sale and donation. The donations will disappear and only the rich will survive.
The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit considerably from the sale. Even the mos...

It is already apparent that the black market flows in one direction ; from the Third World to the First. The relative absence of regulation, and the comparative value of the rewards means that healthy individuals in Asia and Africa are victim to scavenging organ merchants. The financial rewards make the decision to sell an organ one of compulsion rather than consent.Where colonialists raped the land, the neo-colonialist surgeon steals from bodies.
The specific virtues of a scheme of sale of organs is that each transaction remains one of personal ...

The sale of organs is a poor solution to a pressing problem. The BMA has proposed a system of ‘presumed consent’. This scheme would allow doctors to assume that the organs of a deceased patient can be used for transplant unless the patient or his family have made a contrary request. Alternatively, the BMA has advocated radical revision of the inefficient system by which patients are matched to donors. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed the development of a website that would link patients, surgeons and donors nationwide. The BMA also envisages the deployment of ‘multi-organ retrieval teams’ led by hospital consultants, in order to ensure that any available organs are not lost from cadaveric donors.
A legitimate market in human organs would not be inconsistent with either public or private healthca...

The market in body parts that thrives in the United States is neither successful nor to be welcomed. The sale of embryos, eggs and sperm in the United Kingdom is prohibited by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Surrogacy arrangements are not permitted. Blood is collected by voluntary donation. The US regularly suffers the donation of infected blood, given by diseased citizens compelled by the available reward. The paternity and maternity litigation concerning egg and sperm donors, and surrogate mothers is pervasive and persistent. Putting a price on the human body only invites exploitation by the unscrupulous.
There is simply not enough space to deal with offenders

The Prison system is groaning under the weight of offenders, and if steps aren't taken to increase capacity the prison system could face a real crisis. Many of our prisons are operating at more than twice the allotted space for inmates. There are currently around 84,000 people incarcerated in British prisons. However, that figure is set to rise to 96,000 by 2014. [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/25/prison-reform-trust-jails-overcrowded]]
The new prisons will just fill up as well.

Building more prisons will just be seen as an opportunity to fit more prisoners in them and worry less about space. As nothing has been done to actually solve the problems leading to prison overcrowding, the number of prisoners will continue building up over time until the new prisons are all full as well. Building prisions is not the way to tackle overcrowding. This is because "Wherever we build prisons, the courts will make use of them."[[Andrew Coyle, You can't solve overcrowding by building more prisons, The Guardian, 1/4/08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/justice.prisonsandprobation%5D%5D Essentially if there is space that space will get used as judges come under more and more pressure to impose longer sentences and have more minimum sentances imposed. So the prisions simply fillup quicker. Simply put if our prisions are getting filled up then it means we are convicting more people than are coming out of prision. So even with more space the celing would eventually be hit, it would just be later.
Communities nearby the prisons will suffer.

The extra prisons have to be built somewhere and the communities closest to the prisons are going to suffer as a result. Higher security prisons can be built in places away from communities but we will eventually run out of suitable spaces. Not surprisingly communities near to possible new prisions are againsts them "We are here to support the vast majority of people in Warrington who want nothing to do with the Labour Government's plans for a new Titan prison in our town," "a prison on the Omega site is a mistake for Warrington. The Lib Dems are proud to join with local people and fight for what is best for our town."[[http://warringtonlibdems.org.uk/news/000102/warrington_lib_dems_join_the_public_to_put_new_prison_proposal_back_behind_bars.html]] The same would be likely to happen everywhere. The opposition parties are able to take it up as a cause and a way to gain more votes as residents do not want a nearby prison.
Overcrowded prisons are creating poor environments for prisoners.

Overcrowding of prisons obviously has a detrimental effect on conditions within a prison. With more in-mates there is less money for each individual, and standards in prisons suffer. Some might say that this isn't a problem; that as they have broken the law we should not be overly concerned with their rights. However, research has showed evidence that poor prison conditions can lead to higher rates of prisoner suicides, as well as increasing the likelihood that that prisoners re-offend when they are released. This obviously has an effect for the general public if criminals are being released from prison and then re-offending, and need to be made aware of how prison conditions can have an effect on them.
Rehabilitation is the answer not extra prison spaces.

Imprisoning convicts does not challenge the root cause of why people commit crimes in the first place. More attempts have to be made to rehabilitate criminals to try to understand the reasons for crime and to help reduce the number of criminals re-offending, as well as helping them re-integrate into society. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3300130.ece]]
Communities nearby the prisons will suffer.

The Department of Justice asserts that prisions can be a part of the community. Jack Straw There should be a new "contract" between offenders and the community The idea is to balance the opportunities we give offenders to turn away from crime with what the community expects in return. That... means giving the community a greater role in setting out what is expected of offenders... Gloucester prison, for instance, has been running a scheme where the hours of work a prisoner clocks up contribute to a "timebank" which stores pledged hours of volunteering. In this way the work done in prison - in Gloucester's case repairing bicycles that are sent to developing countries - benefits the local community. An hour's work on the inside can mean a lift to the shops for an elderly person on the outside, or a hospital visit or time spent by volunteers to clean the local park. Through such projects a prison becomes an active part of a community, which is constructive for offenders and for the communities they have wronged. It is not just the prison walls themselves that will offer a visible symbol of justice being done. [[Jack Straw, The £37,000 question, The Guardian, 27/3/08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/27/prisonsandprobation.justice%5D%5D
No,just toughen it up.

We do not need more prisons we just need to make the deterent tougher. The British prison is one big club with all the free amenities. If the sentences were tougher and longer it would deter a lot from entering a life of crime. There are far too many short sentences which result in the idiots knowing they will not be there long so have fun whilst there with the same ilk,and their bills paid. No more prisons just more time.
Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an expensive technological proc...

The decision making and the effort that will be required to clone a human suggests that the child will be highly valued by its parent or parents. Furthermore, we should not pretend that every child conceived by sexual procreation is born to wholly well-intentioned parents. The desire to have ‘a son and heir’ is common around the world but does not concern the welfare of the future child. Similarly, children are often conceived out of marital custom, in order to consolidate a relationship, or even in order to gain free accommodation from local housing authorities. Finally, many children are not intended at all, but are born as a result of unplanned pregnancies. There would be no fear of ‘accidental cloning’ that could bring a child to a parent who was unprepared, or unwilling, to love it.
The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, f...

The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, from which only one healthy and viable sheep was produced. The other foetuses were hideously deformed and either died or were aborted. Moreover, Ian Wilmut and other commentators have noted that we cannot know whether clones will suffer from premature ageing as a result of their elderly genes. There are also fears that the reprogramming of the nucleus of a somatic cell in order to trigger the cell division that leads to the cloning of an individual may result in a significantly increased risk of cancer.
Reproductive cloning harms the integrity of the family. Single people will be able to produce offspr...

Reproductive cloning harms the integrity of the family. Single people will be able to produce offspring without even the physical presence of a partner. Once born, the child will be denied the love of one parent, most probably the father. Several theologians have recognised that a child is a symbolic expression of the mutual love of its parents, and their hope for the future. This sign of love is lost when a child’s life begins in a laboratory.
Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of ...

Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of people. An American geneticist, Dr. Dan Brock, has already identified a trend towards ‘new and benign eugenics’ that is perpetrated by developments in biotechnology. When people are able to clone themselves they will be able to choose which type of person shall be born. This seems uncomfortably close to the Nazi concept of breeding a race of Aryan superhumans, whilst eliminating those individuals whose characteristics they considered unhealthy. The ‘Boys from Brazil’ scenario of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of ‘Brave New World’, or even the cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a very real prospect.