BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.

Asha Jennings began a boycott of misogynistic music in hip-hop, resulting in the 'take back the music' campaign supported by essence magazine. Jennings claims that this type of rap/ hip hop music is 'telling people [black women] are bitches and hos and sluts and not worthy of respect [...] And that's exactly how society is treating us'1. She continues that images of women 'tends to be objectified, degrading, very stripper-like' or as nagging vicious and manipulative money grabbers1. Jennings' worry is that in these videos women are depicted as menial, subservient and purely as the object of men's entertainment. The lyrics that go with these music videos compound these ideas of women as undeserving of male respect e.g. 'wouldn't piss on fire to put you out' (Eminem), 'Then I straight smoked the ho [...] and she thanked me' (NWE) (All lyrics in full are in the scrapbook). These images in themselves are violence towards women, as they dehumanise them. As this becomes a dominant image in society, young people who look up to these rappers mimic their behaviour and believe it is ok to disrespect women,2 as that is what they have been exposed to. This works in the same way for young girls, who cannot relate to the male rappers and so instead mimic the women they talk about, while also following their views on women. This idea that women are not deserving of respect must affect the levels of violence towards women as if you abuse someone you cannot fully respect them. Therefore if music depicting violence (and for this argument, disrespect) towards women was banned, then violence towards women in the real world would be reduced and this must be seen as a good thing. 1 CNN, Hip-Hop Portrayal of Women Protested,  2005 2 Burnham, L. Nightmares of Depravity. Durland 21 June 1995.  improve this
It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.

There are many reasons it would be impractical to ban certain types of music: First, who would choose what music counts as inappropriate and on what criteria? This would include concerns such as the Rolling Stone's song, 'Brown Sugar' which depicts sexual violence towards a slave by a slave owner (see scrapbook). It would be up to this censor to assert whether this song is highlighting and mocking a distressing moment in history, or whether it is glorifying this incident or merely describing it with no moral judgement. The censor would also have to then choose which of these where fitting reasons to ban the song. This is just a matter of opinion and thus no-one can be unbiased in making a decision. If this is true then it seems that no-one should have the right of it over someone else's opinion. Second while there could be a ban made on recording or selling songs that depict violence towards women, or prohibit them being played on the radio, with current technological advances it would be very difficult to enforce a total ban. Music is widely available on thousands of websites via video/internet radio etc. More basically, music is a very communal activity and people may sing in crowds or to each other. Country songs (as a genre) have one of the highest percentages of music depicting violence towards women, and these songs tend to have an oral history. Thus even if there was a ban on new songs being recorded, these old songs would continue to be heard and new songs may be heard to a smaller audience. Thus people would still be exposed to these lyrics of women being abused in music. The final reason it would be difficult to ban music that depicts violence towards women is that this runs a risk that this will only encourage musicians to write such songs, which become more popular for being 'forbidden fruit'. improve this
To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures.

Many feminists criticise the idea of banning music that glorifies violence against women, as they perpetuate the idea of women as helpless victims who cannot cope with male criticism or violent language. One such group of people are 'power feminists'1 These power feminists believe that by complaining that men are depicting violent language towards women, and attempting to get this banned, the gender stereotype of women as a victim is reinforced; thus undoing any feminist progress that tries to assert men and women are equals. Power feminists believe that instead women should take this language in hand, assert/ defend themselves and retaliate in order to state that women are equals to those who produce this violent music. 1Campbell, R. L. Part I: Power Feminist or Victim Feminist? 24 March 2004. improve this
To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would

Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes. Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire. 1  Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia.
The 'Slippery-Slope' Argument

Banning music that glorifies violence is at risk of the 'slippery-slope' of censorship, which occurs on two levels. Firstly that while music depicting violence towards women may be banned for the best intentions, this censorship may end up extending to other unpopular pieces of art, literature, film or news stories. It may follow that once music depicting violence is banned, that definition of violence may be expanded, afterwards that it is easier to ban songs that contain a political message as there is already precedent. While it is unlikely that it would ever be carried to such an extreme this could continue, until simply anything that is disliked by those in control of the banning is prohibited. It may also discourage people to say or publish expressions of their own for fear of them being considered pornography and being prosecuted1. Equally likely would be the spread of such bans to other forms of media as mentioned in opposition argument one.The second concern of the 'slippery slope' argument is that banning this type of music may cause a stagnation of creative output as people are scared to produce any music that might be considered offensive. This might result in no new styles of music being created and thus styles of music may begin to become torpid. 1Schauer, Frederick F, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) improve this
Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.

Violence towards women is a common and world-wide phenomenon, occurring on every continent and throughout history. Therefore it seems crazy to suggest that levels of domestic violence are related to this small sub-culture of music that depicts violence towards women. If we are arguing that it exposes people to situations where they hear (in lyrics) or see (in music videos) then it could be countered that if anything this music is just highlighting these incidences of violence that are still occurring and we might as well ban the news or television drama as they expose people just as much without an age reference. improve this
Neither individuals nor corporations should be permitted to make unlimited contributions

Currently, Super PACs are organizations that can receive unlimited contributions, which encourages the belief that the amount of money contributed is directly correlated to the amount of influence the donor could have. By permitting individuals or corporations to make unlimited contributions, the current legislation undermines the democratic character of the elective process. Political figures related to the sponsored Super PACs have an incentive to satisfy the needs of those who contribute huge amounts of funding towards their campaign rather than meet the needs of the average citizen. This is not the way that democracy should be; it must represent the viewpoint and needs of the majority of the population, not just the small fraction of it that is wealthy enough to effectively pay for policies they want. Furthermore, caps on contributions to Super PACs will bring competition in elections back into the mainstream and when more citizens contribute to politicians, they will be more engaged in politics.[1]  For example, the pass of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) eliminated soft money for parties and attempted to handle the elections contributions through PACs. With the elimination of soft money for parties, the role of interest groups investment decreased in the 1990s.[2] Obama’s campaign in 2008 raised 114.1 million or 34% of his general election fund from small contributions. His unprecedented small donor fundraising success can be interpreted as increased credibility and public visibility for Obama and through this the benefit of mobilizing lots of small donations. In 2008, Obama used online communications and social networking tools to reach and mobilise more people. In effect of this approach, he not only inspired an unprecedented number of young and retired people to get involved in the campaign, but also achieved the highest rate of small contributions.[3] [1] Malbin, Michael, Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein. "Reform in an Age of NEtworked Campaigns." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. By Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 84-106. Print. [2] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83. [3] Malbin, 2011.
In regards to free speech, corporations should have the same rights as individuals if they are spending money on the campaigns.

When a corporation and an individual are both trying to achieve the same goal, they should be able to do so in the same way. It would be unfair if the campaign finance reform limits the amount that an individual could contribute, but not that of a corporation when it is apparent that corporations are contributing considerably larger amounts than individuals as seen in the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations need to have the same rights and limitations on campaign contributions and economic freedom. This was why the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on spending by corporations was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Act in 2010. This led to the Super PACs because they represent an association of people and have the right to freedom of speech and political preference. Reforms, such as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) may have been successful in curtailing interest groups role as investors in campaigns, they failed when it comes to candidate advocacy as a result of super PACs. Such regulations that limit large-scale political spending from interest groups serves to limit speech crucial to political groups without a broad base of support or political entrepreneurs like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that got its message aired when the national media was ignoring the issue. Moreover, bans on corporate contributions did not prevent alternative ways for candidate advocacy, such as the private satellite radio station of the National Rifle Association or the movies made by the Citizens United[1] These alternative ways could undermine the principle of fair and transparent campaigns more than the lack of such limit on spending from individuals and corporations and their political expression. [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.58-9
Further reforms would create a level playing field

A further reform limiting super PACs would have the effect of leveling the playing field for candidates. Candidates with enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system, it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money. Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive and thus enhance higher turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is essential for challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise large sums of money. Quantitative analysis of elections involving incumbents from twenty-five states across three election cycles indicate that more stringent campaign finance laws increase the likelihood of  new challengers to the current incumbent.[1]  Financing laws limiting fundraising increase the likelihood of minority-party and independent challengers and produce higher rate of election competition. As a result challengers feel they have better chances against the incumbents. [1] Hamm, Keith E., and Hogan, Robert E., “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections”, Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 171-191.
Stopping super PACs would place an emphasis on actual issues rather than politicians selling themselves.

Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more comparable to other donors’ interests. At present, the enormous amount of money channeled into campaigns by large corporations, unions, and special interest groups through PACs overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors. Reforming the super PACs and limiting these large group donations would increase the significance of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and so increasing their accountability to their electorate. Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions encourages voter participation and activism.
Anonymity increases the distortive effects of money in American politics.

Allowing anonymity of contribution to “Issue Ads” and to Super PACs only amplifies the corrosive effect money has on American politics. Without knowing where the funding for particular “Issue Ads” come from, the intentions of contributors can be obfuscated and issues can be easily branded into political palatable campaigns by allowing contributors to keep themselves and their agendas hidden[1]. Using names such as the “America Future Fund”[2] and the “Coalition of American Seniors”[3] political allegiances and agendas are hidden from view, removing a much needed critical evaluation of those who contribute and what their ends are. Further to this, the anonymity of Super PACs make it easy for foreign contributors, who are banned by US law from contributing to campaigns, to secretly contribute to campaigns, helping to skew American democracy by giving undue political influence to foreign corporations and their interests[4]. Anonymity of Super PACs allows people to obfuscate their intentions and turn campaigns into opaque propaganda, removing the capacity for proper democracy and political debate. [1] "Campaign Finance: Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." Economist 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/campaign_finance [2] ibid [3] "ibid [4] Parnell, Sean. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Campaign Freedom. Center for Competitive Politics, 05 Oct 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/a-campaign-finance-reform-twofer-from-think-progress
Corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and have the right to influence politics differently.

The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people and may not fully represent the views of any of them. Thus many big companies while favoring one party or the other actually give to both parties, Honeywell International for example to July 2012 had given more than $2.2million with 63% going to the Republicans and the rest to the Democrats.[1] These companies clearly then bet on both sides, presumably however their senior staff are actually supporting one or the other.       Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporation almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different. Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimize the role and influence of interest groups. [1] McIntyre, Douglas A., and Hess, Alexander E. M., “10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 Wall St.”, Huffington Post, 2 July 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/corporate-political-donations_n_1644375.html#slide=1176088
Further campaign finance reform is simply unrealistic and too ambitious.

It is simply unfeasible for this policy to work effectively. There are two key issues that arise to prevent this policy from having any positive impact. Firstly, when dealing with the general public actually knowing who is contributing, the vast majority of these contributions, whether from a corporation or an individual, are contributed under the names of individuals. The first problem with this is that thousands of names of individuals cannot fit into a commercial advertisement. There would have to be a list created which is made public, but, unfortunately, the vast majority of people will not seek this list out and so will not become any more informed about who is behind the advertisement. The second problem is that even if the public did find the list, individual names do not hold any weight or indication of the types of interests that are backing campaigns and advertisements. “John Smith” and “Joe Jones” will not indicate to a normal person that this advertisement was funded by an oil company even if these people are the oil company’s CEO and Managing Director. Secondly, corporations and large businesses that want to avoid detection will simply donate the money under an individual’s name or donate ‘in the name’ of multiple employees of the company in quantities small enough not to raise any suspicion as they already do with current campaign donations to stay under funding caps. There are already instances, such as ASG in 2012, where CEOs pressurise their employees into making donations,[1] if they are no longer able to spend as much as they wish themselves they will be much more likely to use their employees. Therefore, this policy does nothing to help the American political situation. [1] Volsky, Igot, “CEO Asks Employees To Help Company ‘And Yourself’ By Donating $2,500 To Romney”, Think Progress, 20 October 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/20/1054351/ceo-asks-employees-to-help-company-and-yourself-by-donating-2500-to-romney/
Anonymity Ensures that Campaigning Rises above Identity Attacks.

Certain political groups are politically disenfranchised because of perceptions about them that exist of in the society. Some groups are considered as being political enemies by their counterparts from more powerful opposing political parties and therefore, they cannot engage meaningfully in the political discourse without being dismissed at the get-go. Allowing anonymity in Issue Ads allows people and groups to fund political speech and support certain policies and political discussions without having social perceptions of their membership to certain groups taint their political activity. This is especially important in America where membership to certain groups is considered to coincide with political allegiance like in the case of the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. 39% of people say that they would be less likely to support a candidate if they were supported by the NRA so it is clear that the NRA can best support a campaign anonymously.[1] Anonymity will enfranchise certain forms of political activity by individuals and associations which otherwise would have been dismissed by voters. Therefore, allowing anonymity allows for less partisan policy discussion. [1] Jensen, Tom, “Americans consider NRA endorsement to be a negative”, Public Policy Polling, 5 February 2013, http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_205.pdf