BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The war on prostitution

That the war on drugs has been a failure has not led to the legalization of drugs around the world. Failure to prevent something is not an argument for legalizing it, more an incentive to examine the methods being employed to combat the problem. Most Western countries anti-prostitution laws focus on the prostitutes themselves, as they are the most visible target for police to take actions against and secure easy convictions. Any laws against kerb crawling are poorly enforced at best as it is much more difficult to obtain convictions for kerb crawling. This style of policing only creates a revolving door system of justice where prostitutes are soon back on the streets, continuing to employ their trade as they do not have the wherewithal to obtain lawful employment. Law reforms should decriminalize the sale of prostitution in favour of harsher sanctions on the purchase. This has a number of benefits in that there is now a disincentive in place for the clients where there was no real disincentive before, prostitutes no longer have a reason not to go to the police for fear of being arrested and it allows support services to work with prostitutes with a view to finding them a way out of the profession. This has had marked success in Sweden with no reason why it could not be employed in other countries.
Legalised prostitution still victimises the vulnerable.

Whether prostitution is legal or illegal, the women who become subject to the trade are weak ones. Whilst only 1 in 300 women in London is a prostitute, 1 in 35 are prostitutes where such a profession is legal. Of that number, 75% are from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. [[Karina Schaapman, The Times, December 2008]]. Women come from these poor countries expecting wealth and all they get is paying customers waiting at their door. This would be a particular problem in London whereby it is known to those in the Eastern hemisphere as the place where you will be able to make a good living for yourself. With this high expectation, many will turn to prostitution to meet their financial aims. Legalised prostitution would be nothing more than exploitation of the vulnerable for tax purposes.
Legalisation of prostitution would break the link between their managers or ‘pimps’.

The legalisation of the ‘Bunny Ranch’ in Nevada did not prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. This is because brothels are more expensive environments for prostitutes to work and clients to visit. Rent, health checks, and security, are some of the costs which make it uneconomic for some prostitutes to be employed in brothels. In Britain, where prostitution is virtually prohibited, some prostitutes use private apartments, whilst others work on the street. Legalisation of prostitution does not remove the street market, or the dangers associated with it. The dangerous street environment is generated by simple economics, not legal controls.
Capacity of natural disasters

No matter how advanced mankind becomes, Mother Nature has the ability to wipe it out in one fell swoop. If this is to be doubted just take a look at the selected events that have occurred since 2003. 2003- Heat wave in Western Europe which was responsible for up to 37,451 deaths. 2004- Indian Ocean Tsunami which was responsible for the deaths of up to 230,000 people. It was caused by an earthquake in the ocean that measured between 9.1 & 9.3 on the Richter scale, making it the second most powerful earthquake ever recorded. 2005- Hurricane Katrina hit the south east corner of the USA, and was responsible for the deaths of 1,836 people and resulted in $89.6 billion worth of damage. This occuring in the worlds only super power. 2005- Earthquake in Kashmir, Pakistan, which was responsible for the deaths of 74,500+ people 2008- Earthquake in Sichuan Province, China. This was responsible for the deaths of 69,197 people, and cost the Chinese government $441 billion in aid and restoration costs. 2009- Australian Bush Fires was responsible for over 173 deaths. It also burnt out 4500 km² 450,000 ha (1,100,000 acres) of land. 2009- L'Aquila Earthquake, Italy was responsible for the deaths of over 270 people, causing $16 billion worth of damage and was Italys deadliest earthquake in almost 30 years. After looking at all these events, it can only result in one conclusion. No matter what mankind does, Mother Nature rules the world.
polytheism

Essentially as in any polytheistic religions Mother Nature does not rule the world because the world is split between numerous gods each of which rule an aspect of the world. To take the Greeks as an example While Gaia is considered the main earth goddess, the personification of the earth and probably the closest to ‘mother nature’. Although she was the great mother of all she cannot be said to rule the world, as she was in conflict first with her husband Ouranos, then son, Kronos and finally Zeus. As these were successively in the highest god in the pantheon, even if as heavenly gods rather than earthly it is difficult to say she ruled the world. Moreover there are other earth goddesses; Rhea was a goddess of the earth, she was often considered the great mother, and mother of the gods. Rhea is Gaia’s daughter. The lion was sacred to her as she was the divinity of the earth, and because the lion is the strongest and most important of all animals on earth. To make things more complex her daughter Cybele was a primal nature goddess, and Demeter was goddess of Agriculture and another nature goddess, Poseidon was god of the seas etc. [[http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Gaia.html http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanisRhea.html ]]
Creation of Life

It is the power of creation that is most important. And it is similarly something that we are increasingly usurping. We have since 1995 been able to clone animals. Most famously dolly the sheep who was cloned in 1996 and survived until 2003. Dolly was the first mammal to have been cloned from an adult cell with others having been cloned from embryo cells.[[http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/dolly/]] We have for some time been able to use IVF to fertilise eggs in the laboratory. Allowing otherwise infertile couples to have children.[[1978: First 'test tube baby' born, BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/25/newsid_2499000/2499411.stm%5D%5D More mundanely we have for thousands of years been creating breeds of animals such as dogs and cattle. We create new strains of crops that more suit our needs. If Mother Nature is no longer the sole controller of what life is created on the world then she can no longer be considered solely rule the world.
There are such things as limits

Humanity is not separate from the rest of the world, but part of the world. There are some 6.6 billion people on the planet and projected to grow by about 40% to over 9 billion by 2050. As a result, natural resources (fresh water, arable land, biodiversity etc.) on a per person basis will decline due to population growth alone by at least 25% over that time. However, our activities are actually reducing the availability of these resources. Therefore, the rate of decline per person over the intervening years will actually be much higher than the rate due to population alone. For example, if the resource in question declines by an average 1% per year, then the per capita decline doubles to 50%. A 0.25% per year average decline would increase the per capita decline to over 33%. These rates of decline will almost certainly stretch the ability of technological change to make up the difference beyond breaking point. Therefore, limits on natural resource availability mean we face significant lifestyle changes being forced upon us by the natural world, or Mother Nature if you will. Oh and if you noticed, I have not mentioned climate change. Throw that into the mix and resource declines increase even more dramatically. It is hard to see how we can avoid a Malthusian cull of humanity in the next few decades.
Naturalism

Naturalism looks upon nature (and presumably therefore mother nature as well) as the fundamental source of everything that exists, everything can be explained in terms of nature. The limits of nature are the limits of reality itself and if the limits of nature are the limits of reality itself then we can absolutely say that Mother Nature rules the world; and a whole lot more too! Some forms of naturalism may allow for the existence of a God however He is within nature itself or else is the cause of nature but has no impact upon it. He cannot influence the order of nature or the course of events that are predetermined.[[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm]]
Monotheism

Assuming a belief in God as creator then no mother nature does not rule the world but is created by God. (Assuming of course that Mother Nature is not the one God you believe in). In Christianity Mother Nature is considered the agent of god in the moral order. There are Natural Laws which all must obey. If God is seen as the cause and creator of nature and its laws then that nature and its ‘laws’ depend upon Gods will which can presumably be changed by God, and indeed are temporarily suspended in the form of miracles.[[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm]]
Capacity of natural disasters

It is possible for many natural disasters to be mitigated against. For example, in California where they suffer from a large amount of earthquakes due to the San Andreas fault, they are able to build structures which can withstand earthquakes. L'Aquila, for example, was so devastating because many of the buildings in the town were very old and therefore not designed to withstand such a powerful earthquake. In New Orleans, flood defences have been built so that the level of flooding seen during Katrina is never repeated. For heatwaves, air conditioning and other measures can be used to combat extreme heat. This shows that all but the most extreme natural disaster can be offset by man made technology.
Mother Nature no longer controls the environment

Since the dawn of time, Mother Nature has been able to develop the Earths environment naturally. However, over the course of the last 100 years, her autonomy in this area has been significantly lessened as a result of man made climate change. Due to increased industrialisation since the turn of the century, and its emission of green house gasses such as Carbon Dioxide, the Earths average temperature has risen drastically in the last 50 years. As a result Sea levels are rising, there has been a change in the amount and pattern of precipitation, there will be an expansion of sub-tropical deserts, and the retreat of perma frost, glaciers and sea ice continues. There are also predictions of an upturn in the intensity of extreme weather, species extinction and a change to farming yields. In the United Kingdom, the ten warmest years on record are as follows: 2006, 2007, 2003, 2004, 2002, 2005, 1990, 1997, 1949 and 1999. This further demonstrates the change in climate, and it is man made phenomena. The Earths environment is increasingly being controlled less and less by Mother Nature, and more and more by us.
Email accounts contain some potentially sensitive information.

People don't email each other things they would want to be in public, otherwise they would have put it on a blog or public forum. Quite intimate conversations can be had over email. They may want to vent their anger about their husband or say something they know their husband will disagree with while avoiding an argument. People who don't understand technology that well could send personal details that they shouldn't. People conduct sales and banking over the Internet and the site will send reminders over email. Many sites send registration confirmation in emails that includes the actual password. You should ask permission before you read anything potentially sensitive.
You have too much control over someone else.

Being husband and wife doesn't mean you want to share every single facet of your identity. A spouse isn't completely trustworthy, they can turn abusive, they can secretly be manipulating you or pulling some kind of financial fraud against you. You always need things outside your marriage that you can use if it fails. Quite apart from that, when you get married you are still your own person, you can't let someone completely erode who you are. Your online presence should always be your own property because the Internet is for having a different identity, being anonymous, doing things you can't do in the offline world. To interfere with someone's online presence is to have too much control over them.
An email shouldn't be used in a court of law.

An email is very easy to fake. Emails can be altered or deleted before or after being sent. They can be drafted and then not sent. They can be written sent without the person's permission by someone else with access to their account. Email accounts aren't that difficult to hack into. The recipient could be a fake account and the conversation be with an imaginary person. There is virtually no way to prove either person's account belongs to the person it is alleged to belong to. Because it is typed, there is no way to tell someone's identity from their handwriting or from who has been touching the paper.
They were in a position of mistrust.

At the time he accessed the information, they were already in discord if he suspected his wife was having an affair. They will already have been acting out of character, their behaviour would have been suspicious, they would start acting hostile towards each other. In this situation they are not in a position where they can trust each other. Therefore they should not be sharing information that they can be used to hurt each other, and accessing such information should be seen as a threat.
AIf a you can access your spouse's account you can fabricate emails from that very A/C to make your spouse look guilty

There is no proof that he didn't just log in and write the email exchange himself. She had filed for divorce months earlier, they weren't 'really' married anymore and as such he invaded a half-stranger's privacy by hacking into her A/C. "According to prosecutors, Leon walker broke into his wife's account several months after she filed for divorce. clara walker said her husband installed a tracking device that allowed him to track her e-mail activity. leon walker faces up to five years in prison if convicted. Locate history files, websites visited, searches e-mail history. memory bye. see you hide from me now, little man. Spying on spouses is nothing new, but some snooping husbands and wives may not realize that in this new age of technology, peeking in the wrong places can actually be illegal. " [[http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40820892]]
He did not have permission

Leon Walker went through his wife's notebook to get her password and then he logged onto her email account. He never asked if he could read her emails or if he could know her password; he stole it and he logged into her account; possibly to get out of paying alimony after the divorce(which she had filed for several months prior to Leon's activity). "Walker claims she kept her passwords on a piece of paper beside the computer, and he was well within his rights to log into her account. Prosecutors have a different take: they say Walker's spying took place months after she filed for divorce, which was granted this month. What's more, Walker's ex testified that he had installed a device on their computer to keep track of her email activity." [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/leon-walker_n_802020.html]] [[http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40820892]] [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/27/leon-walker-wifes-email_n_801679.html]]
In this case, there was a good reason to.

If he suspected this, he should have reported it to the police and they would have accessed the information. Anyone can claim to be suspicious about someone else's activity in order to access information about them. You can't intrude on other people's property because of suspicion, you shouldn't be able to access their computers without permission. As someone with reason to be extremely biased against her, he should have been the last person to have access to her private information. He could have rewritten, fabricated or deleted pertinent information. Counterargument: He could warn the first husband without snooping around his wife's email account.
Reading someone's email isn't hacking.

While it should not have incurred the maximum penalty and maybe shouldn't have been classified as 'hacking', it still should be considered an offense. The law concerning the use of digital technology still isn't completely clear and many issues still need to be resolved. For instance, many games no longer available in stores aren't legal to emulate. Breaching someone's privacy online should be an offense – I do not want to think that other people, even those close to me, are reading through my emails without my permission!
Getting married is supposed to involve sharing your life with somebody

The very core of a good marriage is trust and sharing. Trust about money. Trust about personal conduct. Trust about defending your partner in public, even when you disagree in private. Trust about stating your feelings, interests and intentions with honesty. It is clear to me that in a marriage where the partners constantly feel the need to hide behind a barrier of personal privacy, that marriage is going to fail, and probably sooner rather than later. In a case where trust has broken down, Marriage Councilling may sometimes be able to contribute something. The criminal courts, I would suggest, have no competence in this area, and will only serve to inflame feelings futher.
An email shouldn't be used in a court of law.

Whether an account is genuine or not is irrelevant to whether accessing your spouse's account is hacking. The assumption in the debate motion is that the account you've accessed 'is' your spouse's account (no fake A/C issue). The fact that you can easily answer your spouse's security questions because you have a healthy relationship based on trust and sharing means it's okay to access your spouse's A/C even without telling. The assumption in the case given in the debate definition is that that was without a doubt his wife's account and she was having an affair. The issue is of breach of privacy not a false accusation. A famous indicator of healthy relationships is no secrets/lies. Some spouses share accounts willingly. It's definitely not hacking when you have his/her permission.
AIf a you can access your spouse's account you can fabricate emails from that very A/C to make your spouse look guilty

Why would he fake an email exchange with a fake account? Where's the motive? Why go through all that trouble trying to frame his wife? "Last year walker suspected his wife Clara was having an affair after finding calls on her phone bills to a previous husband. Concerned about the welfare of their 1-year-old daughter, Wilson decided to check his wife's personal g mail account. Wilson says his suspicions were confirmed. She kept every password she had in a phone book, for the welfare of my daughter and my stepson, I had to check. and in going in there, I confirmed everything I had feared and then" -[[http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40820892]] This is an open and shut case. She was guilty, he didn't frame her.
He did not have permission

They were living in the same house, using the same computer, it's not as though he invaded actually existing privacy. Okay, in this case the wife had already filed for divorce and so the two were not really married in a sense. Normally a husband and wife when they are living under the same roof are not separated. [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/27/leon-walker-wifes-email_n_801679.html]]
You should respect your spouse's privacy

Even though you have said your marriage vows and promised to love and trust each other till eternity, the fact still remains that you and your spouse are two different people with two different lives. Even though your spouse may have given you his or her password, you should still understand that it is your spouse's "personal" e-mail account and should remain personal- meaning your spouse should be the only one accessing it. Since it is your spouse's e-mail account and you and your spouse are not the same person, accessing your spouse's e-mail account without your spouse's knowledge is synonymous to hacking, and therefore should be considered as a violation of privacy.
In this case, there was a good reason to.

Mr. Walker(Clara's third husband) believed that his wife was having an affair with a man(Clara's second husband) with a history of domestic violence and he was worried his stepson might become exposed to violence as well. He needed to access the information quickly so the child's father (Clara's first husband) could file an emergency motion to obtain custody. [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/leon-walker_n_802020.html]]
First dimenson of power

The first face of power is the pluralist view of power; it is simply, by Dahl’s definition, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” This can be through methods such as physical constraint, activation of commitments, persuasion, inducement and coercion. [[Brian Barry, Power An Economic Analysis, in Brian Barry, Democracy, Power and Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989, pp.222-269, p.223.]] For this exercise of power there has to be a conflict of interests or preferences between A and B.[[Colin Hay, Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2002 p.172.]] This power is a possession not an event; the event is the exercise of that power. The distribution of power can thus be worked out through looking at who prevails in decision-making.[[Nelson W. Polsby, Community Power & Political Theory, 2nd edition, Yale University Press, London and New Haven, 1980, p.4.]] Looking at the probability that A will be able to get B to do something he would not otherwise do, therefore seeing how many times A succeeds in his/her exercise of power.[[Barry, Economic, pp.227-228.]] So as an example of what the first face of power could be in China Mr Yan Yuanzhang is called to the Beijing Internet Propaganda Management Office and is told that his websites China Workers Net and Communist Net are providing material that that could be used to attack China by foreign media and therefore must close them down within twenty-four hours.[[‘Special report China and the internet: The Party, the people and the power of cyber-talk’, The economist, 29/4/06, p.27.]] Then the communist party had forced Mr Yan to do something he would not otherwise do exercising power over him.
Second dimension of power

Lukes criticises Bachrach and Baratz’s 2nd face of power for not going far enough. Lukes first argues that its critique of behavioralism is too qualified as it is still committed to behaviouralism.[[Lukes, Steven, Power A Radical View, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2005, p.25]] However Lukes argues that a system of bias, the agenda, is not sustained by a series of individual acts but by the social and cultural environment, the action of a collective group will not be subject to a particular individuals decisions, and there will be systemic effects where there is a mobilisation of bias as a result of the form of the organisation. Secondly power is still about observable conflict.[[ibid, p.26.]] Lukes believes this is wrong because power through manipulation and authority may not involve observable conflict. Additionally, because power need not be only exercised in situations of conflict, this would be the case if A exercises power over B by shaping B’s wants.[[ibid, p.27.]] Related to Lukes second point is his third that with non-decision making power only exists if an actor’s grievances are being blocked from entry into the decision-making process this would miss a case where someone is prevented from believing they have a grievance in the first place.[[ibid, p.28.]]