BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy

With no other narcotic drug are the components parts of that drug banned in of themselves. For example, the raw component parts of crystal meth are not banned. These components are a variety of household cleaning compounds.[1] It is wrong therefore to suggest that it is impossible to have an effective anti-narcotics effort unless the component parts are banned, as this exact approach is successful taken in other areas. [1] Associated Press. “New 'shake-and-bake' method for making crystal meth gets around drug laws but is no less dangerous”. NYDaily News. Tuesday, August 25th 2009.http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/08/25/2009-08-25_new_me...
Coca chewing is not equivalent to the consumption of hard drugs. It is no more harmful than drinking coffee.

The coca leaf, in its natural state, is not even a narcotic, even though the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs considers the natural leaf to be so. However it only truly becomes a narcotic when the paste or the concentrate is extracted from the leaf to form cocaine.[1] The simple coca leaf, by contrast, only has very mild effects when chewed and is different from cocaine. In 1995 the World Health Organisation found that the “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.”[2] It may even be useful in combating obesity, and there is no evidence that coca use is addictive. At worst, it is comparable to caffeine in terms of its effect on its consumer.[3] Therefore there are no significant health reasons behind this ban on the cultivation of coca leaves for their chewed consumption in its traditional form. [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14morales.html [2] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.     [3] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14morales.html
It is irresponsible to teach anything but abstinence to children too young for sex.

Sex carries with it a multitude of risks and responsibilities. All sex – even protected – has the possibility of leading to STIs or pregnancy, both of which have huge psychological, emotional, and physical impacts. Furthermore, sex can create emotional bonds between individuals which are overwhelming and intense. Young people are simply not emotionally or physically mature enough to take such risks, or accept such responsibilities, and so it is irresponsible to teach anything butabstinence.   improve this
Parents, not schools, should teach their children about sex.

Given that cultural and social attitudes towards sex are so variable, it should be up to the family to decide how to broach this sensitive topic. Schools are supposed to give students the skills and knowledge they need for employment and/or higher education: sex education is a separate, much more personal, issue. Telling students to abstain ensures that no one is taught anything more than their parents want, and leaves room for parents to give a more extensive education if they so desire. This is especially true since most parents support abstinence education anyway: A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents found that 78% of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use.[1] [1] Zogby International. “Survey of Nationwide Parents of Children Age 10-16.” Zobgy International. 27 March 2007.
Sex positive sex education is more likely to reduce irresponsible sexual behaviour than abstinence programs.

Teaching teens that sex is wrong forces them to believe that their natural sexual impulses are wrong- causing great confusion and self-doubt- and causing the needless and frustrating suppression of sexual impulses. Instead, teens should be taught that these impulses are natural and beautiful, and should be helped in the process of understanding and channelling them. This will help teens live a more fulfilling life, as opposed to a life of self-denial. Notwithstanding the rarity of sex positive sexual education schemes in the UK and the USA, sex positive teaching has been used elsewhere, including Germany and the Netherlands. By teaching teenagers that sexual encounters are highly pleasurable, but should be entered into safely and responsibly, there is less chance that they will see sex as a taboo. Correspondingly, teenagers will be more willing to discuss crises arising from their sexual behaviour, and more likely to recognise the symptoms of STIs and pregnancy, and more likely to seek help for such problems.
Schools are obliged to teach kids about sexuality.

There is a growing movement, in the United States and elsewhere, which asserts. That young people have the right to comprehensive sexuality education. “Comprehensive”, in this sense, does mean sex education that extends to condom use. It means an approach to sex education that covers scientific, ethical, medical, emotional, and religious issues. Sex education is not a subject which schools can rightfully exclude if they are to remain true to the central objective of progressive pedagogy – broadening the freedom and opportunities that young people can access by broadening their educational and social experiences. Indeed, it is irresponsible for to ignore one of the largest spheres of adult life. Many countries recognise this so make sex education compulsory, such as in Sweden where it has been compulsory since 1956.[1]Sending young people into the world with a dearth of knowledge about their bodies, relationships, and the practical realities of sex leaves them woefully unprepared for "real life." [1] Toufexis, Anastasia. et al. “Sex Has Many Accents”. Time, 24 May 1993,
Abstinence-only education teaches young people that they do not need to have sex to fit in.

There is little evidence that abstention-only programs delay the initiation of sex. A range of studies have demonstrated that they do not delay the onset of sexual activity or reduce the frequency with which sex occurs once a teenager has become sexually active. Unglamorous sex-ed does not encourage teenagers to have sex, nor need it exclude information on ways to be non-sexually intimate. Teenagers uninterested in sex are unlikely to become interested as the result of classes on such topics as STIs and methods of protection. On the other hand, many teenagers are thinking about sex, and so educating about prevention of STIs and pregnancy is important (and even may discourage some teens from having sex once they understand the risks and responsibilities that come with it). Furthermore, if teen culture truly is becoming increasingly sexualized, then a scientific and objective sex-ed class may be the best way to ensure that students do not feel pressured into sexual relationships. Given that young people today have lots of exposure to unregulated sexual content (for example on TV), we ought to ensure that they have at least one reliable, informative source about the physical and emotional effects of having sex. Information, not ignorance, will allow them to make the best choices. improve this
Abstinence-only education deters people from having sex at a young age.

First, the program in this study was not a typical abstinence-only program; for example it did not encourage delaying sex until marriage.[1] Second, the vast majority of evidence still suggests that these programs do not work, as the Washington Post concedes when they call this study "the first clear evidence." For example, an eight year study by the Mathematica Policy Research Inc. found that there is no evidence that abstinence-only programs reduce the rate of sexual activity among young people.[2] Furthermore, it is not clear that these programs have any significant impact on pregnancy or STI rates. For example, a 2007 study found that abstinence-only programs do not affect the risk of HIV infection in high income countries.[3] See Opp Argument 2 for more detail on how sex-ed does a better job at reducing pregnancy rates, particularly because it teaches students how to properly use condoms. [1] Stein, Rob. “Abstinence-only programs might work, study says.” Washington Post. 2 February 2010. [2] Mathematica Policy Research. “Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V, Section 510.” Mathematica Policy Research. 2007. [3] Underhill, Kristin. “Sexual Abstinence Only Programmes to Prevent HIV Infection in High Income Countries: Systematic Review.” British Medical Journal.  26 July 2007.
Abstinence-only education rightly teaches saving sex for marriage (or at least a long term, exclusive relationship).

Non-marital sex is not wrong. If two consenting individuals wish to have sex, and feel that they would be made happier by the experience, there is no reason to deny them that right. Furthermore, so long as individuals use protection and get tested for STIs (both measures that sex-ed encourages) they should not be significantly more at-risk than committed couples. Teaching abstinence to an individual does nothing to alter the possibility that his or her future sexual partners will have been more promiscuous. Even if that individual is monogamous if their partner is not then their situation may be little better than if they had been polygamous themselves. This means that abstinent individuals are still at risk of contracting an STI – and that perception of that risk may be understated or distorted by abstinence-only sex education. Finally, marriage is a social and cultural institution not shared by all. Just because the Bible preaches no sex before marriage, and just because some people wish to save sex for marriage, does not mean that all people either think that extra-marital sex is wrong, or intend on getting married at all. It is offensive to suggest that sex out of marriage is necessarily damaging, as some abstinence programs are required to do.[1] It is also impractical, because most young people (about 95% in the United States) do have sex prior to marriage. [1] Social Security Online. “Separate Program for Abstinence Education Sec. 510 [42 U.S.C. 710]. Social Security Online. 2011.
Sex-ed creates informed decisions about risks of sex.

Abstinence-only education does not require lying to students. Abstinence-only can still provide information on the risks and realities of sex, for example by talking about STIss and contraception (but always with the qualifier that students should stay abstinent). Given that sex is a risk-laden activity, it is better to tell students to abstain than to let them make decisions which they may not be mature or independent enough to make properly. improve this
Abstinence-only education teaches young people that they do not need to have sex to fit in.

Abstinence programs teach teenagers how to have meaningful, age-appropriate relationships, and help young people fight the pressure of having sex before they are ready. We live in a highly sexualized culture, and yet many girls report feeling guilty or regret after their first sexual experience.[1]  Indeed, according to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly 30 percent of sexually active teens said they feel pressured to have sex.[2] Abstinence-only education teaches adolescents that they do not need to rush into sexual relationships by dispelling the notion that sex is something teenagers should be having, and by helping young people explore other ways of being emotionally intimate. By leaving out discussions of sex, it reassures teenagers that they do not need to think or worry about sex until they are older, and avoids giving the impression that sex is an important or relevant topic for children.  [1] Rector, Robert. "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth". Heritage Foundation. 8 Apr. 2002. [2] Kaiser Family Foundation. “U.S. Teen Sexual Activity Fact Sheet.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. January 2005.   improve this
Abstinence-only education deters people from having sex at a young age.

POINT Although most previous evidence supporting abstinence-only education failed to meet high scientific standards, a recent study has presented what the Washington Post calls “the first clear evidence” that abstinence-only education really can work. The federally funded study found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders receiving abstinence-only education had sex over the following two years, whereas nearly half of 6th and 7thgraders attending other classes became sexually active.[1] And, abstinence-only education did not affect condom usage[2] )(confirming what the Mathematica Policy Research study cited by the Opposition also found![3]). This suggests that good abstinence-only programs (this one, for example, did not condemn condoms) implemented at a young age, do have real effects on young people’s sexual activity. [1] Stein, Rob. “Abstinence-only programs might work, study says.” Washington Post. 2 February 2010. [2] Jemmott, John B. III et al. “Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months.” Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 164, No. 2. February 2010. [3] Mathematica Policy Research. “Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V, Section 510.” Mathematica Policy Research. 2007.
Abstinence-only education rightly teaches saving sex for marriage (or at least a long term, exclusive relationship).

Monogamous sex is much safer than polygamous sex, as it reduces the chance of obtaining and spreading STIs. Furthermore, sex outside of marriage makes it more difficult to develop intimate and trusting relationships. Random sexual partners who are unsure of each other’s fidelity cannot develop the same type of unique and personal relationship that a committed couple can. Numerous studies have shown that this is the case; having more partners increases the STD risk.[1] And, sex before marriage goes against cultural and religious principles.  Abstinence education rightly teaches teenagers that saving sex for marriage is the best way to be healthful and happy. [1] Rosenberg, Melanie et al., ‘Concurrent Sex Partners and Risk for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Adolescents’, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol 26, No. 4, April 1999 pp.208-212.
Sex-ed does a better job of ensuring that students have safe sex.

Teenage pregnancy rates have declined in recent years, and supporters of an abstinence-only approach sometimes use this trend to defend their programs. However, according to a paper in The American Journal of Public Health, 86 percent of the decline in teenage pregnancy can be attributed to more widespread-- and more effective-- contraceptive use, and only 14 percent to teenagers’ choosing to stay abstinent longer.[1]) This is not simply about using condoms: it is about using condoms properly. Incorrect use of condoms can make them extremely ineffective at preventing STDs and pregnancy.[2] The implication is that even if young people in abstinence-programs still report using condoms, they are probably less likely to use them correctly since they are not taught how. Alternately, sex-ed programs teach students how to use them properly, giving them the tools they need to stay safe. For more detail on the inefficacy of abstinence-only programs, see response to Prop Argument 3. [1] Santelli, John S. et al. “Explaining Recent Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy in the United States: The Contribution of Abstinence and Improved Contraceptive Use.” American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 97, No. 1. January 2007. [2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 April 2011.   improve this
Sex-ed creates informed decisions about risks of sex.

Giving young people a clear message about behaviour is one of the important characteristics of comprehensive sex education programs. Usually, the core of this message will be that refraining from sex is the safest choice to make, but that protective measures should always be used when sexual activity does take place. What side proposition may describe as a “liberal” abstinence approach is effectively a comprehensive approach. Sexual relationships can be very intense, and it is important that students fully understand what they mean, and what the risks and responsibilities that go alongside them are. Students need to be aware of the physical, psychological and emotional implications of having sex in order to make informed decisions, but abstinence-only does not give them this information. If the only thing that students know about sex is that they 'should not have it,' there is no way they can actually make educated choices about whether or not to be abstinent. Treating students like the young adults they are by giving them honest information about sex means that they will make smarter choices (and possibly be even less likely to have sex, once they know the risks).   improve this
It is irresponsible to teach anything but abstinence to children too young for sex.

Abstinence is obviously the most effective form of birth control and protection from STIs, but telling students to practice abstinence does not mean that they will. Abstinence should absolutely be emphasized as an important method of staying safe, but teaching it alongside other information about sex and protection is far more responsible than pretending that these things do not exist. Even if young people shouldn’t be having sex (which is not necessarily true), many clearly are (slightly under half of high school students have had sex according to the Kaiser Family Foundation).[1] Consequently, it is better to a) ensure that they have adequate knowledge to stay safe and b) view their teachers as honest and informative, so that they trust their advice and do not simply reject the class as moralizing or irrelevant. [1] Kaiser Family Foundation. “U.S. Teen Sexual Activity Fact Sheet.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. January 2005.   improve this
Parents, not schools, should teach their children about sex.

First, to clarify, while the poll found that 78% of parents think sex education classes should place more emphasis on abstinence, it also found that more parents would rather their children were enrolled in comprehensive sex education courses than in abstinence education courses.[1] But more importantly, the problem with relying on parents to teach their children essential sexual information is that many children do not have parents, or responsible ones. These children need a holistic education more than anyone, and it is unfair to prevent them from learning about sex just because they have no one willing to talk to them about it. Furthermore, schools are meant to prepare students not only academically, but also socially: sending students into the world with no knowledge about sex is irresponsible both to the students, who are may be unprepared for a very large part of their lives, and to society, which must deal with an uneducated and consequently at-risk population. Cultural attitudes aside, there are some medical facts students need to know. See Opp Argument 3 for more detail. [1] Zogby International. “Survey of Nationwide Parents of Children Age 10-16.” Zobgy International. 27 March 2007.
Sex positive sex education is more likely to reduce irresponsible sexual behaviour than abstinence programs.

Abstinence-only education does not need to condemn relationships, or force students to suppress their impulses. Rather, it helps students channel these impulses (if they even have them: many people are not concerned about sex until they are older) into less harmful and risky activities: for example through teaching ways to be non-sexually intimate. Furthermore, abstinence is more likely to discourage early sexual encounters which students may end up regretting (as outlined in Prop Argument 1), thus helping students have what are ultimately more fulfilling and healthy sexual lives.
The Soda Ban is an infringement upon the personal right to choose

Freedom of choice is not absolute; it does not mean the consumer should be free to buy whatever they want from wherever they want. For example there is no expectation for restaurants and stores to always have both Pepsi and Coca Cola. In this instance freedom of choice in terms of size is not absolute; there is the freedom to have as much soda as the consumer desires they simply have to buy it in smaller portions. Arguing that representatives’ not being able to choose whether to enact this legislation is also restriction of choice ignores that Bloomberg himself is an elected politician that was chosen by the people.
The Ban Would Be a Barrier to Free Enterprise

There are only slight price differences between 34 and 18-ounce sodas. McDonalds and Coca-Cola corporations were pushing independent franchises to lower the price of sodas to one dollar.[1] While the goal of the ban is to cut down the consumption of soda, the government has the right to put their citizens’ health needs above free enterprise. The non-universality of the ban is unfortunate but this ban is merely a small step in the direction of curbing obesity rates. The fact that restaurants will not be able to serve gigantic portions of soda will not push New Yorkers from eating at those restaurants to eating their meals at 7-Elevens. These are clearly two separate markets; one for purchasing drinks the other for consuming them with meals. It is therefore wrong to conclude that this is any kind of barrier to free enterprise. [1] Ziobro, Paul, ‘McDonald's Bets Pricing Drinks At $1 Will Heat Up Summer Sales’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2012.
It is undemocratic to have the law pass through the board of health.

First how democratic the governance of the city is does not detract from the right of the city government to restrict the size of soda drinks. The system of government has not been changed in order enact this particular regulation. Second it must be remembered that Mayor Bloomberg himself was elected. He was elected to a third term with 51% of the vote compared to 46% for his Democratic rival.[1] To be elected for a third time in a Democrat stronghold gives him a good deal of electoral legitimacy. [1] Goldman, Henry, ‘Bloomberg Wins Third NYC Mayor Term Beats Comptroller Thompson’, Bloomberg, 4 November 2009.