BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
celebrities have no education in politics!

Celebrities have also been a normal member of the public so they know what people want from the government, politicians are celebrities. Actors have education in every role they play. no not all prime ministers and presidents have studied 'politics' most are lawyers (Tony Blair[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair#Education]] studied jurisprudence at Oxford; Obama) president Clinton studied history at undergrad then maybe law. Pre-law students usually study international relations or history not politics unless it's 'political history'. Jodi foster was a pre-law student. A great many celebs are given honorary degrees from top-notch schools/unis/colleges. Cheryl Cole definitely has political preferences.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Cole#Personal_life]] John Major(former Prime minister U.K) had left school at 16 with only three O' Level passes.[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/gallery/2008/dec/02/drop-out-school-leaving-age?picture=340166919]] How's that for an education in politics? "Health secretary - and former education secretary - Alan Johnson left Sloane grammar school in Chelsea at 15. He stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18" - [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/gallery/2008/dec/02/drop-out-school-leaving-age?picture=340166931]]
celebrities have no education in politics!

If a celebrity wanted to become Prime Minister surely they would have to have went to university and studied politics! it is not fair that people who have worked hard to become an MP ;who then try to go onto becoming Prime Minister and only to be beaten to it by a celebrity who has walked in and decided s/he wants to become the leader of their country! The Prime Minister also has to make important decisions although there are always a minority who don't agree with these decisions, it is better for someone who has studied politics to make these decisions that will effect peoples life rather than a singer, dancer or a tv presenter! could you really imagine Cheryl Cole being our Prime Minister- no offense inflicted on Cheryl Cole but she is not a politician she is a singer. but if a celebrity has gone and studied politics and graduated from university i would be very happy for her to be our Prime Minister
Celebrities and politicians are two different things

Plenty of celebrities have made the jump into politics by leveraging their name recognition. Politics in many countries today is really about who can be elected, and already being known (unless it is for something that makes you unelectable I guess) is an immense advantage. Hence people like Arnold Schwarzenegger can be elected. Similarly in countries where money matters celebrities tend to have money to kickstart their campaign as well as already knowing the wealthy. Equally politicians often try (not often successfully) to go the other way and become more active in the media, hosting TV shows - for example Harold Wilson had a go at hosting chat shows - although he was terrible at it.
Would lead to similar policy towards drugs

In response to the 'No'; Surely the only reason prostitution is illegal, is that the House has needed the votes of those who claim to 'morally object' to prostitution (and drug users). Are there any other reasons? Only a brave and radical House would legalise both. It would put and end to the damaging state of denial the nation wallows in. Both could be dealt with - rationally. The difficult part would be dealing with the moral objectors outrage and the inevitable booting out of the House at the next election. So be it! Legalise it!
law fails women by its very existence

Although the law "exists to protect women" by its very existence it completely fails to do so; with prostitution a black market trade, unregulated and practiced on street corners and behind closed doors, the women who ply this trade are far more vulnerable than they would be if they were operating from a licensed venue. Such a venue could have security, panic buttons etc. Sexual health checks could be mandatory (for customers and workers) The women would be in no danger from curb/kerb crawlers, like the Ipswich lorry driver who murdered several prostitutes after picking them up in poorly-lit back streets . Much of the abuse suffered by these women comes from the pimps who exploit them and keep them hooked on drugs so as to keep them utterly dependent. Women would be free from such servitude and would have much better access to counseling and welfare services. The industry could be taxed with revenue reinvested in improving the work environment. One could make reference to the landmark lobbying of the U.N by Cambodian prostitutes for their trade to be decriminalised and for the right to work; [[www.rabble.ca/taxonomy/term/3138/all/feed]] Keeping this huge and unavoidable industry illegal on nothing more than principle is a narrow minded and obviously counter-productive approach.
People Trafficking

Human trafficking in relation to prostitution coincides so greatly in America at this time because we allow these men and women who CHOOSE to partake in this workforce to be vulnerable. In America today, prostitution is the MOST DANGEROUS job and unsurprisingly enough police are less than willing to provide aid to prostitutes who have been raped, beaten or harassed. We are turning our backs on human beings that rely on the same protection as any other person. Also with brothels being legitimate businesses, the number of girls that are under 18, or not of age of consent who willingly prostitute themselves, will greatly diminish.By legalizing prostitution America we will be able to provide security to these people. America will be able to provide stability and protection for these people. Overall America will be able to prevent things like sex trafficking happening to defenseless prostitutes, and providing more government money to attack, find, arrest, and prosecute the ring leaders of sex trafficking.
Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting

There are plenty of jobs for unskilled workers, janitorial positions are the most common. Most prostitutes are runaways or victims of extreme harassment (ranging from incestuous to violent and both) . If these [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfrEN8kT2ek]] people were offered a chance to believe that they are not solely made-for-sex and good for nothing else they would exit the trade or never even enter the trade. Problem is, psychological counselling and great parenthood is lacking in many homes. Prostitution may have existed long enough and during that time has proved to be no less of an ill/bane.
Would lead to similar policy towards drugs

The Netherlands legalised prostitution in the 20th Century as part of a gedoogbeleid (policy of tolerance). This policy was adopted in the belief that it would reduce harm to those involved and others. The Government believed that outlawing prostitution was counter productive and therefore should be regulated. This reasoning equally applied to drugs. If Britain were to legalise prostitution, the legalization of drugs would be a logical necessity. As the reasoning behind the two systems is the same; “they may be morally undesirable but we are to regulate them to reduce harm”. We cannot pick up one side of the stick without the other. Therefore, keeping both illegal would be desirable as too many people would be morally offended by these two morally wrong acts being made legal.
People Trafficking

People trafficking is still a huge problem despite the abolition of the slave trade 200 years ago. More than one person is trafficked across their borders every minute. [[http://www.stopthetraffik.org/humantrafficking/background.aspx]] Most of the people trafficked into the country are girls who are sold into prostitution. Can you imagine how many more innocent girls will be promised a better life, taken from their homes and then sold into a profession like prostitution in developed countries across the world? By legalising prostitution, traffickers will have a get-out clause with the law and the people they traffick will suffer. Surely we can't allow this?!
Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting

"Those who care about women’s rights, a concept that has been recently mobilised in Italy, condemn the ‘cleansing’ policy because they recognize that it not only increases the invisibility and exploitation (and forced labor) of sex workers, but it also weakens the workers’ contractual power, while strengthening the power of the rackets." [[http://www.xtalkproject.net/?p=740]] Point being the sex trade has existed since time immemorial while measures have been taken to shame, vilify and abuse sex workers, the trade will not disappear if the cycle of punishing sex workers when demand famously creates supply, continues. Unless avenues for safe work alternatives for unskilled workers can be opened, prostitution is here to stay. People need to eat and where and when there is nowhere to turn a murderous filthy racket/mobster/gangster or a sleazy aficionado or a curious college/university student is all there is. There should also be protection mechanisms employed to ensure that a former prostitute has not his/her life to fear before and after entering another walk of life.
It would not solve the violence of prostitution.

The reasoning behind legalising prostitution is to prevent harm to prostitutes themselves. However, there is no actual evidence that this would occur. In fact, Amsterdam, our closest case study into what legalising prostitution can do, violent crime and killings have been on the increase and the Mayor of Amsterdam is now seeking to clean the Red Light District up. With so many Eastern European women entering the country in order to become prostitutes, Eastern European gangs have followed and the results can be seen in Amsterdam’s gang crime statistics. The illegal trafficking of women is still rife, as are other crimes which these gangs use the prostitution to fund. In truth, the prostitutes are no more protected when prostitution is legalised, and the public are not safer under such a rule. [[Marlise Simons, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24amsterdam.html?_r=1, February 2008]]
Safety of the parties involved

Promoting prostitution as a career choice would lead to people from more vulnerable sectors of society getting into it more readily than they otherwise would have. Most prostitutes take hard drugs as the result of trying to escape what they have started. They then find that they must continue selling sex in order to pay for their next fix. The fact that prostitutes are not, on the whole, happy, content, well-educated people should be proof enough that this is not the kind of work we should look fondly on. Anyone entering this business would, undoubtedly, require a lot of counselling to undo the emotional damage caused by selling sex to strangers.
Many women who have nothing become prostitutes to survive

Exploitation continues mainly because as you've said 'women who have nothing become prostitutes.' That automatically implies that society is legally exploiting the fact that these women have nothing. As bad as they are today? uh many countries including the UK have legal prostitution, while certain countries such as the USA have limited legality on prostitution. How people handle being prostitutes depends on them, there are all kinds of prostitutes I think it is safe to assume the high class prostitutes are doing much better than low class prostitutes irrespective of the level of legality in their country. [[http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772]]
Many feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women.

The overwhelming trend of feminism is against prostitution. The radical feminist school that emerged in the 1990s supports the orthodoxy that prostitution leads to the objectification of women. The use of a woman’s body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanises both prostitute and client, and does not represent a victory for either sex.
Safety of the parties involved

By regulating prostitution, the safety of all parties can be monitored. Sex workers would be screened for STIs and protected from potentially harmful clients. The clients would also get the same benefits, as can be proven by the system of legalized prostitution in parts of Nevada. The opposition say that it would lead to the more vulnerable of society getting involved but the presupposes that all prostitution is harmful to women and that prostitutes' voices are never credible when they defend prostitution as an alternative Furthermore the fact that prostitutes are not on the whole well educated does not mean anything. Prostitutes often are undereducated and this means that their choices are far more limited, many would prefer to work in an industry where they make relatively decent money, can work child friendly hours and don't come home physically destroyed. The alternatives often are labour heavy, hour intensive menial work which would not necessarily leave them happy or content. Approximately 25% of prostitutess fare better than the average woman, 50% have similar experiences and 25% have experiences that can be described as nightmareish. However, if you look at this group they are already especially vulnerable and often illegal immigrants or drug dependent i.e. the ready-made victims of exploitation.
Many women who have nothing become prostitutes to survive

While this happens already in a time where prostitution is illegal, women would be much better protected and would survive more comfortably if prostitution was legal. They would not be exploited and would be able to make a living without being treated as bad as they are today. "New laws making it a criminal offence to have sex with prostitutes controlled by pimps may be too complex to work in practice, police have warned. The legislation, which is due to come into effect later this year, aims to protect women forced into the trade. Gloucestershire Chief Constable Dr Tim Brain said he feared the complexity of the law may make gaining evidence hard... The government's planned change to the law in England and Wales aims to protect women forced into the trade by traffickers and pimps. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith launched the new legislation with an unequivocal message, saying 'there will be no more excuses for those who pay for sex'. At present it is not illegal to pay for sex. Under the new legislation a man will face prosecution if he pays for sex with a woman who is being 'controlled for gain' by someone else... The Home Office says more than 160 victims of sex trafficking were rescued by police in a six-month period last year. The bill also includes tougher controls on kerb crawlers."
Bad for Business

Although prostitution, as an act, is not legalised. The girls who are forced to, and those who are not would lose money. Prostitution is illegal due to its sometime violent outbursts and the danger that it can put people in. However, legalising prostitution would mean that it is no longer a taboo and would somewhat decrease the desire to hire a prostitute. Amsterdam has its legalised prostitution and it works fine, yet it is mainly a tourist attraction and the men that do use prostitutes in Amsterdam do it as it is a form of souvenir, something to cross off the list. Because of the way that the girls are advertised and portrayed they can charge large amounts of money. This would not be the case in the UK. The UK would not embrace ideas of sexuality like Holland and this advertising and promotion of the girls would not be the same if legalised in the UK. With this in mind prostitutes would not have the same ability to charge as they do. Also, would leglising prostitution mean that people could manage prostitutes in a harsher sense than pimps or madames? Charging as they wish and possibly giving a wage rather than commission based pay? These would all need to be taken into account and if so the reason that people go into prostitution is usually because they are forced into due to lack of money. If it was a wage based system there is nothing then stopping people from getting another job that puts them at less risk. Legalising prostitution should not happen, not due the fact that it would make prostitution seem morally acceptable but that it would not help the people involved in the industry as well.
Many feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women.

Many libertarian feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women. The majority of prostitutes are women. Once the dangers of abuse from male clients and pimps are removed, the capacity of women to control the sexual responses of men in a financially beneficial relationship is liberating. Furthermore, many campaigners for the rights of prostitutes note that the hours are relatively short, the work well-remunerated, and the services they offer are ones that other women are compelled to provide without charge.
The law should not condone illicit behaviour

The law should never be changed so as to make provisions for the most morally blameworthy of behaviour. The girls may have some sympathy among the public, however, how can it be legal for men to pry around women and pick and choose who they wish to take to bed that night? How can a Christian society be seen to condone such behaviour? We may have a secular society, but the morals that run through our fibres are that of Christian teachings. The law should not be able to go against such moral fibre of its society for any amount of benefit; seen as the detriment to society’s moral balance would always be a far greater factor to weigh.
The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women

The law exists to protect women, many of whom are forced in prostitution by circumstances such as drug abuse, or more directly by unscrupulous human trafficking gangs. These women, experts such as the police say, face a life of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse unless the authorities are legally empowered to shut down the establishments they work in when they are detected. Bonded forced prostitutes are shipped or urged to come to Europe where it is legal and are then exploited there, in general.
Legalisation or Decrimilisation

It is important to define whether you mean legalisation or decriminalization; these are very different concepts and worldwide have led to different results. Furthermore how exactly would you legalise, do you propose a system such as Holland where there are parks which you go to for Sex or a system more like Queensland in Australia? Decriminalisation has recently (2004) occured in New Zealand and also occured in New South Wales; however there are still substantial regulatory differences and these regulations give substantial differences in outcome
Prostitution is responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.

There is no method of proving that some individuals who visit prostitutes would otherwise have committed violent offences. Psychological therapies that recommended the use of prostitutes have now been widely discredited. The number of violent attacks on prostitutes, including rape and murder, and the considerably greater number of such crimes which are believed to go unreported, suggests that prostitutes themselves are the victims of the most serious criminal offences. In Victoria, where prostitution is legalised, there are two rapes of prostitutes reported each week.
Legalised prostitution still victimises the vulnerable.

Extortion is wrong and illegal but that is not what Schaapman talks about here. While the idea that women in prostitution are the 'Weak ones' not only comes from a very moral perspective but also a very subjective value system, Karina Schaapman has fallen into the trap of pigeon holing and casting a vast generalisation over a large segment of society. Despite the fact that women (by definition) are more than just their career choice and also (by definition of being human) are abjectly incapable of making the 'strong' choice every time in every period of their lives,Schaapman has tared them all with the same brush. Having been forced and chosen to associate with people from 'all walks of life' it has been harder to hold my intellectual prejudices which were fostered and supported in public school . Because of this it became much harder to view the parade of prostitutes marching through Soho in defence of the expression of their life choice to be a symbol of ignorance, weakness and low intellect. While the definition of weak and strong is still highly debated across cultures, philosophies and religions its actual existance is strongly questioned in many psychological fields. I do wonder how Schaapman can work for a news paper who hasn't once questioned (and has even supported) the surge in recruits to the British Military in recent years despite the highly dubious reasons for the deaths we are causing in the ME( you would have to be strong to publicly pick that one though!!!). From all the past articles Schaapman has never targeted these trained killers as subjects of weakness. I'm not a hippie but (whether I agree totally with the life choice or not) I lean towards chosing to make love not war while exploring God's Green Earth.
Prevent Prostitution From Going Underground

When we legalise something, it would be easier to monitor it. Making prostitution illegal will force the bussiness to go underground. This makes it harder for regulation to happen. Usually underground activities are hard to erase and their impact on the society is much worse. This bussiness would harbour women who have HIV. It would probably use teenage prostitutes. They would not have to worry about the use of condoms or other forms of protection. Human trafficking may happen because of its underground nature like what is happening in several countries. If we legalise prostitution we could actually have an eye out to prevent any of this from happening.
The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women

Women (and men) should be free to decide what they do with their own bodies. The state has no right to tell them they cannot make a living out of having consensual sex. If individuals are allowed to smoke, drink and even commit suicide without facing legal repercussions, then banning prostitution is simply hypocritical. Forced prostitution 'is' illegal ,which means the 'law' does not protect women/men from being forcibly solicited.People dying to be prostitutes cannot do so alone without facing the law, and therefore have to resort to large illegal criminal underground organisations, that exploit them. Prostitution is one of the oldest ways of making money. Making it illegal does/would not put an end to it.
Morality of Prostitution

First and foremost, prostitution is not in any form slavery. Women/men are not selling THEMSELVES... they are providing a service in exchange for money. It is a CHOICE that these women/men provide what they do, a choice that they should be FREE to make. Within society the words 'gay', 'fag', 'whore', 'slut', 'bitch', 'fat', 'ugly',.. (I believe you get the point...) are still the most powerful insults to any of the following they insult. That is discrimination... that is of course offensive but not directly related to prostitution. That is the weakness of our country lowering the esteem of each other opposed to working together to be stronger and more unified. Regardless, ones morals are not and do not relate to anothers. We live in a free world, therefore are entitled to our own opinions, beliefs, and choices. Additionally, if you attempt to "legislate morality", whose morals are to be used? Consensus?