BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anti-terrorism legislation indirectly evokes terrorism

It is important to distinguish denouncing the legislation itself and its actual clauses, denouncing the act of discrimination, and denouncing the act of marginalizing a faction in society on terms which have no basis in fact or reason. The Proposition appears to deem the act of discrimination as wrong within itself. This is fallacious, as the act of discrimination itself is accepted on a day to day basis, for example only a man can use the men’s toilet facilities, we only disagree with discrimination when there is no justified criteria behind it. This refers to the denunciation of the marginalizing a faction of society upon no substantial fact or reason, the bit which we believe relevant to the debate. Therefore, in terms of efficiently seeking out terror suspects, some criteria must be adopted. However, if we understand that due to the nature of the abilities anti-terror legislation gives a government, we must either accept living with the infringement of certain 'rights' or having to live without the legislation entirely, we may understand that the trade off may work in favour of the legislation existing. The paper to which the Proposition refers on how “the penitentiary system tends to punish most vulnerable social groups” uses the example of illegal immigrants, not people of different races. An analysis of this situation shows that as nations tend to see the LEGAL movement of a foreign citizen into your state as an acknowledgement and regard of the laws of that state, it is no wonder that the manifestation of those laws, the judicial system, often seeks out those who have moved into a nation ILLEGALLY. A second, different, point the Opposition look to rebut is the one that anti-terror legislation provokes terrorism as it is the nature of bodies exercising the legislation to target certain groups with it, and these targeted groups will go on to become the terror threat we oppose. Now the Proposition refute this not only on the basis that in order for the terror legislation to have been instigated, there must have already been present a large enough terror threat (ie a threat not constituted by those who reacted in anger to the legislation) but on the basis that the legislation is probably not what the terrorists are fighting against. For, when was the last time Osama Bin Laden’s broadcast included “you know what really grinds my gears? The fact that the US government is filtering through my emails”? Instead he rouses resentment against the US through highlighting the US government’s support of Israel or its insistence through foreign policy towards as of yet unfounded hostility to Iran. The marginalization of a faction of society is not conducted through anti-terror legislation, which does not explicitly target a section of society, but through propaganda, and aggressive foreign policy which does.
That National Security is of comparable worth to Liberty

It is important to explain why Opposition place such a high value on national security (as was not done by Proposition on Liberty.) We think that there is a logical reason why national security must be the first objective of any state. Self-preservation is not only an obvious imperative, but its absence precludes the existence of any following objective. We believe the state qualifies ‘liberty’ in a way that makes it dependent on the state’s survival. Let us illustrate this with an analogy: In the state of nature, ie. one with no laws or formal agreement, the concept of ‘property’ becomes essentially meaningless. I cannot speak of ‘owning’ something apart from the fact that I expect to remain in possession of it until there arrives a person strong enough to take it from me. The establishment of a State and its attendant legal system confer meaning on the term ‘property’. We believe the same is true of ‘liberty’. Clearly, the full use of freedom and its existence proper, is diminished or dissolved if the state does not survive. I might still be able to act freely in the sense of being unrestricted, but all those great freedoms which we value, like to be educated or to fulfil my potential, become lost. Liberty is dependent on a degree of National security. We say this means that national security must be and can only be the first goal of a state. Its absence precludes the presence of any others.
Anti-terrorism legislation undermines democracies

Throughout the history we have seen examples when states abused their power and committed crimes against the people of their own. The abuse of power was almost always inevitable when the states granted themselves privileges to freely undermine the rights of the people. Both Communist and Nazi regimes are known very well for their explicit surveillance of the general public and other violent abuses. It was exactly why after the Second World War, in the shadow of massive crimes for humanity, an obvious realization came into the minds of people. It was appreciated that certain rights have to be protected no matter what, because these rights are so fundamental to the functioning of free and democratic societies that, once neglected, they undermine democracies. Bearing in mind the ideas of the Enlightenment and general human justice, documents as Universal Declaration of Human Rights were adopted. It promotes the ideas that all people are equal and should be treated so, under no circumstances they could be subject to inhumane treatment. Implicitly the document puts quite strong limitations on the state and safeguards for its citizens. For instance, we allow people to choose whoever they want to be and to have an identity, because the fact that they have these freedoms is valuable in and of itself. We allow them to keep the facts that they regularly browse gay pornography, read Mein Kampf for leisure or are interested in contemporary life of Kurdish people. We allow all these things, because it is an expression of our general values which tell us that people are free and we cannot restrict their liberties unless they violate the liberties of the others. Moreover, we allow them to keep these facts for themselves as the very feeling of being in control of your personal zone is what is fundamental for the right to privacy, and, in the broader sense, the freedom to live. Once anti-terrorism legislation kicks in, the implicit relationship between government and people is violated. By allowing interception, widespread tracking of public records, unfair legal treatment, we erase the trust between citizens and the government. When all your library patrons can be seized and all your browsing logs checked just on a claim that they are relevant to intelligence information, we do not see this respecting human privacy and dignity. Previous examples have shown us that governments are prone to abuse human rights when given excessive power. The powers, which anti-terrorist legislation gives to the state, effectively undermine democracies and human rights.
We don't regret the times anti-terrorism legislation has prevented attacks

The recently prevented liquid bomb plot {[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8254156.stm]] is one of the many examples where the anti-terrorism legislation which Proposition would see abolished has been successful in preventing attack. The plotters were arrested and convicted upon for example of "emails submitted as evidence" which we shall reiterate is the type of evidence which would not otherwise have been collated if it weren't for the anty-terrorism legislation. However, these cases tend not to make as great headlines. Surely the Proposition would not suggest that they would rather have seen the bombers' plan to bring down SEVEN transatlantic flights killing countless thousands of innocent victims? "The men's arrests in August 2006 caused chaos to the global aviation industry and prompted continuing restrictions to the amount of liquids passengers can take on to aircraft"[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8254156.stm]] The change has not only meant massive expenditure and inconvenience for travellers and travel companies but a high emotional cost and cost to their feelings of security.
Students deserve to learn about different theories from each religion

In order for students to grow up as well-rounded, understanding and knowledgeable individuals, it is of vital importance that they learn about each others' religions, alongside their own. Coupled with this, students learn to respect each other. The world can be a very divided, prejudiced place, therefore it is essential that students learn from a young age about the history of the religion of their fellow students. Science lessons are the perfect way to do this, where creationism can be explained and taught about in the same manner as evolution. Those who believe in evolution can learn about what Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in alongside their own.
This is an issue of states’ and local rights.

Science doesn’t change depending on where you live, nor because you hold a vote on it. We would not want different school boards putting forward skewed views of American history, or teaching their own versions of English spelling and grammar. In the same way, we must reject local attempts to keep young people ignorant through an appeal to “community values”. The 1st amendment is there to make sure that one faith cannot use state institutions to drive out all opportunities to question. It also makes sure that every child has access to the highest quality science education, which is vital for both their own future life-chances, and the future prosperity of America as a whole.
Science lessons are not always comprised of undisputed fact

The mainstream of argument against largely depends on the opinion that science lessons present fact and religious education presents belief. However, with the world of science constantly improving and ever changing, science lessons are not always comprised of undisputed fact. Aristotle taught us that there are five bodily senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and sound. But, according to NewScientist Magazine(1), the count is at odds with science. Their count is actually an enormous 21! But surely, it is much more convenient for the curriculum to outline the usual five. Simply because the majority of scientists and the population believe something, does not make it fact. (1)http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524841.600.html
Evolution has not been proved: it is a theory used to explain visible facts.

Evolution has not been proved: it is a theory used to explain visible facts. But those facts can be explained just as well, and in some cases, even better, by intelligent design theory. In addition, evolutionists do not accept that the evidence essential for proving their ideas – e.g. fossil remains of transitional, evolving beings – simply does not exist. Creationism is a theory that is at least as valid as evolution and should be taught along with it.
Creationism is not based on scientific principles

Everything taught in science lessons has come from scientific reasoning. This is one reason why they are called science lessons. Scinece is reasoning based on current facts and evidence and showing that it fits with the rest of the system. The proof for creationism does not fit with established facts. This does not mean that we should totally stop teaching creationsim in schools althogether after all in order for us to become a tolerant society we need to understand and appreciate values of others. I therefore beleieve that creationsim is a subject best taught in Religious Education/Studies. This is a subject about other peoples views. Ideas such as evolution are taught as it fits with the system. It was reasoned through scientific evidence. not only does it fit throught the idea of the age of the earth but also about how animals have become so diverse and how some have become extinct. Even ideas which have been sugessted and have been proven wrong are taught because is shows reasoning and logic with the availale evidence and it is the best explanation and it raises the last questions or it answers questions from before. In conclusion science is simply an explation and an alternative supposing a "gods" lack of existence.
Science teachers should be sympathetic to each individual student

Science teachers can be sympathetic about the religion and beliefs of their students' even if they do not believe creationism themselves. However, they may not have been professionally trained themselves to teach children about creationism and this poses a problem for the training of all science teachers. What is more, the sensitivity of people's views should not be an issue in science, unless it is a view rejected by science, such as parents wishing for racial segregation to be taught in science classes or magical gnomes being taught in place of atoms. At the most, creationism should be taught as a theory which has been rejected by science. People who subscribe to certain beleifs, be they religious or political are not being goaded by the teaching of science which does not address religious issues. Each person needs to develop resilience and understanding of what is able to be proved and what is able to be believed. It will not assist the development of faith of young people if they become accustomed to the world of adults refraining from showing them the broader world. Faith is about choice. Science is about what can be proven. The story of creationism as taught in the bible was written to assist the understanding of the development of the world 2000 years ago. Our minds are capable of greater understanding of the scientific advances constantly being discovered. This is like saying a history teacher should not correct a child that believes the 2nd world war occurred in the 1600s or that a geography class can be led to believe the Earth is flat. The point of lessons is to teach students what is currently accepted in a given field. It is not to make sure they do not feel hurt or offended. What do you do with a Holocaust-denying child in a history class? Should we mark the answer' God did it' correctly in an exam asking 'describe the theory of natural selection'?. And would you be happy to teach PE in a maths class? (I.e. of course we have to decide which class things should be taught in!) Also, creationism is not an aspect of science. It is religious teaching.
This is an issue of states’ and local rights.

This is an issue of states’ and local rights. Our schools should answer to the local communities which they serve, and which pay to support them. Democratically elected state assemblies and local school boards should be able to make decisions about what is taught in their classrooms, in order to pass on community values and make sure the views of the local population are respected by teachers. It is wrong that a few unelected judges can impose their own very liberal view of what children should learn upon the whole country. In the end, if many parents feel schools are attacking their family’s faith, they will remove their children from the public school system.
Creationism is fact, according to a creationist

In today's modern society, it is the norm that something only becomes fact with scientific support. Scientific support is integral to the teachings of a science lesson. A discussion of whether or not a belief is fact is irrelevant in a science lesson. Science is about teaching about what science considers to be fact. The reality that matters of faith are not included in science curriculum does not equate to a denial of religious beliefs. In fact to include creationalism would equally deny others their rights to not be educated in a Judeo, Christian, Islam belief. There are many more religions in the world - science could become a very intensive subject! A fact is something that can be proved and demonstrated - until then it is a theory. There is nothing small or demeaning about having a particular faith - however it is not something that can be proved. They are distinct areas - it is the person who enables the overlapping not the subject matter. In actuality, the scientific method does not deal with 'facts'. Scientists come up with hypotheses which they test. If they cannot disprove these hypotheses (as there is never any 'proof' either), they develop theories from them. Established theories (such as Evolution by Natural Selection, Gravity or the Heliocentric model of our solar system) are treated as 'proven' or 'fact' only in that they are almost definitely such - not that they are certainly such. This always leaves room to question, re-test and change. This is why science is progressive and this is also why religion is not science.
It may be damaging to some students in a compulsory science lesson

Depending on the age of the student, it may be confusing to them to hear about evolution, when they have been raised to believe in creationism. To hear a science teacher discuss creationism could possibly be damaging to others, during a lesson they cannot get out of, in an environment where they learn about photosynthesis; the periodic table and the human body. So why should they be subjected to learn about creationism in a compulsory lesson, when it may not be in their best interests to do so?
The US Constitution protects freedom of religion.

Teaching evolution in the science classroom is not an attack on religious faith. Students are still free to pursue their own private religious beliefs. Many Christians find no conflict between science and a symbolic reading of the Genesis account of creation. But teaching creationism in a publicly funded school is clearly breaking the Constitution’s 1st amendment. Those who wish to ban the teaching of evolution are really promoting one specific religious tradition based on a very literal reading of the scriptures. Teaching creationism actually means only putting forward that very literalist viewpoint, to the disadvantage of other religions and of non-believers.
Science lessons tend to deal with fact, as opposed to opinion as in a religious education lesson

The bottom line is that science lessons deal with fact and not opinion. Creationism simply is not fact. Creationism was written by a individual whom no one can name. There is no evidence that it actually happened: only a shared belief by millions of people can possibly give creationism any credibility. The fact that it cannot be disproved is not basis enough for it to be taught any more than the unproved proposition that invisible unicorns live on mars should be discussed in the science class. Science is about physical evidence alone, it may not be the only path to truth but it is a very specific discipline and creationism simply cannot live up to its standards and so, although it may in fact be correct, creationism should not therefore be taught alongside evidence based theory. Science lessons are the laboratory of fact, experiments and precision. Religious education classes are home to discussion - sharing opinions and thoughts about something which is uncertain. Professor Lewis Wolpert, of University College London, said(1): "Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. "There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies." (1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education
By teaching intelligent design theory, a school is not doing anything to establish any particular religion.

All religions offer a creation story, varying from faith to faith and from culture to culture. A public school might examine all these beliefs in the context of a history of ideas course, rather than in a science class. In practice, however, creationists are not interested in exploring different beliefs. They are instead committed to putting one religious belief on an equal footing with current scientific thinking in the science classroom.
Parents may choose to raise their children according to a specific religion but that does not require that society must follow

This debate is rather less about the whether or not Creationism is able to be included in a science lesson and rather more about parents who have certain beliefs wanting the rest of society to support them by their choice. If this was extended to all persons of a country it may be covered by a philosophical study of religions - all of them. This however does not meet was is being demanded by those who support creationism. Not all Christians subscribe to such a narrow belief, many understand that it was a metaphor for many events which were unable to be explained in the days that the old testament was written. This call for inclusion of religion in science studies appears to be based on fear that people will be ridiculed for their belief and that their faith will not be able to withstand the conversations of ordinary people. Perhaps the inclusion of curriculum about respect and dignity would protect all from being "taught" religion and affiliations. It is not anti religious to suggest that matters of faith are not appropriate to include in other subjects, rather it respects that religion and faith are matters which are to be respected by all.
History has shown that scientific theories are often disproved over time.

Science is morally and religiously neutral. It does not aim to uphold religion; it does not aim to debunk religious beliefs. Evolution is not taught as an attack on religion; it is taught as the best scientific explanation of available facts. All scientific knowledge is in some way a theory, but we must give students the best theory currently available to explain the world around them. If new facts come to light (e.g. finds of new fossils), then the theory can be rejected or changed to suit the new evidence. That is not the case with creationism or intelligent design, which do not deserve the status that a place in the science curriculum would give them.
Science teachers should be sympathetic to each individual student

Despite what some peoples' opinions might be, those who follow the Christianity, Judaism and Islam religions, might want their religion to be presented as fact in a science lesson and no prejudices of others should stand in the way of this. When dealing with sensitive issues such as religion, does anyone really have a right to say how it should be taught to children and in what subject? Science teachers should respect this and treat creationism the same way as they would any other aspect of science.
It is already taught in most religious education lessons

The Big Bang is also discussed in Religious education, even though that's a scientific theory - just because creationism has its roots in religion doesnt mean that it can't be scientifically prven some time in the future, I mean no one has worked out what the trigger for the bang was for all we know it could be a deity of some sort. Since the big bang is discussed in both Religious Education AND Science then so should creationism because they are both after all just theories and just because Creationism happens to involve a God doesn't mean that it should be ommitted from Scientific studies because that's just degrading for all those who believe in a God...it should at least be mentioned even if it's not in detail.