BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some just don’t bother to register as a donor, even if they support the cause.

It goes without saying that organ donation, in virtually all cases, is a good thing. It helps to save lives, generally does no harm. Unfortunately, most people aren’t organ donors. This is not because they don’t believe in the cause, but because they’re simply too lazy to go out and fill in the form that makes them an organ donor. Statistics show that the majority of people in North American and European nations support the idea of organ donation. In most countries, however, only a small portion of the population are actually organ donors. In France, 98% of citizens are organ donors, compared to only about 25% in North America and most other European nations. This is because in France, all people are organ donors at birth. As a society, we tend to choose the "default" option. If people are automatically organ donors at birth, they can still choose to opt out of being an organ donor at any time. However, those who are impartial and are not severely opposed to organ donation will have the chance to help people in need.
Some people will be distressed by the removal of their loved-ones’ organs

If indeed the last thing people want is to be forced to make a difficult decision lets make the decision for them. If the golden rule is that organs will be used whenever there is a need their actual use will not come as a surprise and may even be a source of comfort in later years. People will get over the fact their loved one’s organs have been used, even against their wishes. But the person who would have died without the transplant, or the person whose life is immeasurably improved, will never get over not having the transplant.
There is a serious shortage of organs for transplant in the UK.

Withholding of consent is not the most significant factor in the current UK organ shortage. Seven out of every ten families approached do give their consent to the use of their relative’s organs for donation; refusal of consent where the donor has previously indicated a willingness to donate, such as with a donor card, is extremely rare. The biggest single factor in national organ donation rates is road safety: most donors are accident victims, as people who die of old age or disease tend not to have suitable organs for donation. Road accident statistics account for the much higher rate of organ donation in Spain than in Britain, for example. Other important factors, which this policy does nothing to address but which account for wide disparities between donation rates in different countries, include cultural attitudes to the disposal of bodies and the provision of intensive care beds. These national differences are reflected in the fact that, for example, Sweden has a lower donation rate per million population than the UK, despite the fact that it has an opt-out system.
Some people will be distressed by the removal of their loved-ones’ organs

The death of a loved one is always a traumatic event, especially if the death is sudden – and people who die suddenly when young are ideal candidates for organ donation. We are piling on the misery to demand that relatives allow their loved ones to be cut open and their organs harvested. The last thing people want at that time is to be asked to make an agonising decision about whether someone else should be able to benefit from their son or daughter’s death. If the donor has consented beforehand its one thing, but it is heartless and deeply upsetting to ask that people be made to opt-out at the moment of bereavement.
There was not a sufficient cause for the attack

The Vietnam War was a crime, it was an act that the U.S. created because they tried to suppress the fact that Vietnam had made an heroic movement which had driven out the french colonialism out of the country. The international agreement that Vietnam and the U.S. had was that Vietnam had to divide into north and south with free elections even before the French were out of the country.This also brought about the fact that government officials had made assumptions that the war was a forfeit and that their exaggerated influence created a mistake that communism had underestimated the power of nationalism. This war actually created wonders on what type of war it represented. It was questioned if it was a sin, a blunder, a necessary war, was it a noble cause, or an idealistic effort to protect the South Vietnamese from being an totalitarian government. If the United State didn’t intervene in the Vietnam War the outcome could be different. The U.S launched an air attack on North Vietnam which then led to the 1968 Tet Offensive which was a set of attacks on over 100 South Vietnam’s towns. The Tet Offensive killed many people and destroyed towns. Those people in South Vietnam didn’t have to lose their lives and towns didn’t have to be destroyed. However because the United States launched the air attacks and put troops on the ground South Vietnam suffered the consequences.
The US had to attack Vietnam to stop the Domino Effect

When the United States found out that South Vietnam was being attacked by Vietnam they were not sure if they should get involved. Much of the public was against getting involved because they did not believe it was their war to fight. The main reason the Vietnamese were at war was communism. South Vietnam wanted to be a non communist country however North Vietnam did not agree and thought they should be a communist country. The United States debated going to war for some time. Since the war was against communism many other countries figured the United States would enter on behalf of the South Vietnam. When the U.S didn’t immediately enter there was talk among the countries that the U.S wasn’t as much against communism as they claimed to be. Countries were starting to question the United States’ motives and real beliefs. Countries were even considering the U.S to be lying about disagreeing with communism and the United States’ integrity was at stake. The United States couldn’t chance the risk of potentially losing allies so finally after much debated about 2,000 soldiers were sent over to maintain order. There was no declaration of war signed throughout the entire war. Slowly the number of soldiers there began to increase. The United States was finally fighting with the South Vietnamese with the end goal of mind of ending communism.
There were widespread massacres and bombings against innocents

It was stated by administration officials that the only reason for the bombing is because they thought it might encourage North Vietnam to accept South Vietnam as non communist. The President actually said one of the reasons for the bombing was to boost the confidence of South Vietnam and destroy the North’s ambition. By doing so it would create a need for the North to regroup with South Vietnam. There were many different attempts to try and level the playing field between Southern Vietnam and U.S. One of the ways was to slow the flow of North Vietnamese soldiers and supplies into South Vietnam by sending American forces to destroy Communist supply bases in Cambodia. These many efforts were made to end the war after this action. The U.S. made the call to withdraw many troops and make Southern Vietnam to pick up where we left off and ultimately take control of what the situation that created the war. This a morally wrong action because if we did not interfere in Vietnams affairs we would not have lost many soliders who gave their life for efforts to try and reunite Vietnam as a whole.
Operation Rolling Thunder was a civilian slaughter

In 1964 Operation Rolling Thunder took effect. President Lyndon Johnson launched an air attack that would end up killing an estimated two million vietnamese and destroying thousands of houses and villages. The reason for the United States launching this air attack was preemptive. This attack was used as an excuse to put military pressure on North Vietnam and to discourage them from continuing the war. The United States claims that the attack was a retaliation strike and that the civilian casualties were unavoidable victims. Two million civilians didn’t have to be killed. The U.S claims that the airstrike was a retaliation due to the attacking of the U.S warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. However it’s not even certain that it was the North Vietnamese who attacked the warships. The United States should have taken the time to prove that it was the North Vietnamese who attacked the warships and not have jumped to conclusions. The U.S claimed that the attack was retaliation however behind closed door President Johnson said that the strike was to boost the confidence of South Vietnam and to cripple the Viet Cong by cutting them off from supplies in North Vietnam. This directly goes against the just war principles of right intention and civilian casualties. There was no wrong being suffered by the United States so they didn’t have the authority to launch an air attack. If it was proven that the North Vietnamese attacked the warships in the Gulf of Tonkin then the United States would have ground for a counter attack. However it was not proven.
The draft caused unwilling men to be made to fight.

The Viet-Cong had already started attacking Southern Vietnam so the U.S had to act quickly in deploying troops.2.2 million men were drafted. It changed the way at home. Most signed up to avoid being drafted.The reason for this action was because the U.S. had set up a certain amount of troops to go and support Southern Vietnam. The men who were sent as the second string of defense were mostly volunteers. The men who volunteered themselves tried to make sure they would not be put into the infantry. Because there was a lot of government influence they kept sending more and more troops to help Southern Vietnam. Ultimately sending more than the needed amount of troops to get the Viet-cong to unite with the Southern Vietnam. Later on in the war the U.S. was able to end the conflict through diplomacy.From that an agreement was formed and the U.S. troops were able to withdraw from the Vietnam.
Operation Ranch Hand was an immoral chemical attack

Operation Ranch Hand was when the U.S sprayed 20 million gallons of defoliants and herbicides. It is estimated that 400,000 people were killed or maimed and 500,000 children were born with birth defects as a result of this. The use of defoliants was protested as early as 1964 by the Federation of American Scientists. In 1967, seventeen Nobel laureates and five thousand other scientists signed a petition asking for an immediate end to the use of defoliants and herbicides in Vietnam. The Agents used were known as the Rainbow Herbicides, and consisted of Agent Pink, Green, Purple, Blue, White, and Orange. Agent Orange specifically was responsible for affecting as many as 3 million vietnamese people, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects. Women had a much higher rate of stillbirths and miscarriages, due to dioxin contamination. It was known beforehand that the 2,4,5-T manufacturing process created dioxin, which causes the disfiguring skin complaint chloracne in tiny doses. But it was said that the herbicides weren’t harmful to humans and therefore didn’t count as chemical warfare. Many experts, including one who developed half of agent orange and was extensively involved in it’s study, opposed the use of it in warfare due to the potential side effects to humans and the environment. However, the US consistently argued that it was not a chemical weapon because it was being used to destroy plant cover and not to harm humans.This weapon was unneeded and an unjust weapon to use in a war. It was morally wrong along with being an unjust weapon to use in a war that’s supposed to be against communism.
President Johnson got around Congress to launch an attack

President Lyndon Johnson did not make a declaration of war like he was supposed to. It states that in the Constitution in order to be at war with a country a declaration of war has to be administered. President Johnson launched an air attack on North Vietnam while circumnavigating Congress. He did not ask for their permission to launch the attack that killed many Vietnamese citizens. Because of this in 1973, the year the war ended Congress enacted the War Powers Act which requires the president to receive permission from Congress before putting Americans in forces overseas. Things that were happening because of the war with North Vietnam were starting to affect the laws of the United States. This war made it clear that something needed to be changed. President Johnson used an airstrike that he thought was the best and only option to change the tide of the war. It went to America barely being in the war to America launching air strikes on North Vietnam. This escalated the war very quickly and made it clear that America was in the war. Along with the air strikes President Johnson also committed troops to the ground. This was extremely unnecessary and unjust considering The United States barely had their feet wet in the war. Because President Lyndon Johnson acted extremely quickly and didn't think things through it costed the Vietnamese their lives and even made Congress change the president. An air strike is obviously something that should be thought through because of all the consequences of it. When Congress changed the law it only reassured that the air strike was something that didn't need to be done. Although there were no laws against it at the time the President did not have legitimate authority to launch the air strikes.
It is a potential weapon.

What counts as a potential weapon? A disabled child's crutches could be swiped off her/him and used to hit someone over the head with.No more sports(let`s not forget how lethal balls and bats can be). Children can potentially attack each other with sharpened pencils and scissors and we can't remove these from the classroom. A Kirpan is not going to be used as a weapon and a Sikh child is neither going to willingly part with his Kirpan or attack someone with it. It is no more a weapon than anything else in the classroom that isn't meant to be a weapon but conceivably could be used as one.(while other things such as baseball bats/sharpened-pencils/guns/bombs/kitchen-knives have reportedly been used as weapons, Kirpans have not.) It would be more useful to have responsible adults in a school who can control a class and protect vulnerable children. And adults to supervise these adults since attacks by and on teachers are fairly common.
Respecting the 'rituals' of the school.

This is impossible when(as reflected in the no-argument of this case) the rituals of the school are not the same as the rituals of the Sikh religion. The rituals of the school are not as old nor as sacred as that of the Sikh religion nor the constitution which puts religion before/above the rules of any particular school. However, all of that is irrelevant since the/a school did not ban the traditional knife, a concerned parent filed a lawsuit. Sum up: there is no ritual violation , only a concerned parent who is obviously not Sikh and prejudiced because of his/her own perception of how knives are being used in his/her religion/community/society. There is no reported incidence of this type/kind of knife being used by students in a violent context in Britain or anywhere-else.
We are violating their right to an education.

A Sikh's belief means that they have to have the Kirpan with them at all times. If it is not permitted in school, they cannot go to school. Creating a condition where it is impossible for a child to go to school is the same as violating their fundamental right to an education. There should not be a situation in which you have to choose between the tenets of your faith and ultimately the foundations of your identity as a person or your right to education. You cannot compromise on your own identity – you can't only half be you. Neither can you have only half a faith in your religion.
Fuelling an atmosphere of religious and cultural tension in Britain.

The last thing Britain needs is more religious and cultural tension. We already have conflict with ethnic minorities because of increasingly restrictive immigration laws, the rise of the BNP, generally poor conditions on the housing estates where refugees and asylum seekers with low incomes are forced to live, unjust wars in their homelands that we have been a party to etc. Now we are failing to even negotiate with children by stopping Muslims wearing hijabs, and now Sikhs wearing Kara bangles and Kirpans. No matter who is in the right, Britain will be destabilised and ultimately destroyed by the resulting conflicts unless we maintain order by calming everyone down.
Anything from a sharpened pencil to cutlery in the cafeteria can be used as a fatal weapon

From a security standpoint, nothing should be permitted in schools. Shoes can be used to beat people, what with martial arts trends taught to children even human hands can be used as effective death machines. A sharpened poked into the jugular vein causes fatal injury. When Britain banned guns, (kitchen)knife crime escalated, banning knives can mean the escalation of `pencil`crime and so on; it`s not a cycle that can really be stopped. Take pencils away and there will be a significant rise in people injuring/killing each other with their bare hands(and they do). [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm]] And the concerns are baseless since this particular kind of knife has not been used in any reported crime. Canada ruled for this and maybe Britain should too.
fuels discontent between religions

We allow the hijab, burkhas, yamakas, turbans, rosaries, tajs, fezes, doppas, kufis, etc. It is ridiculous that we would ban this when we allow every one else to have personal items to express their beliefs. How does this help the relationships between religions when every one else can have these items but we will deny the sikhs this. This says to the sikhs well they can express their beliefs, but you can not. Banning the kirpan will no doubt create bad feelings between sikhs and other religions.
It is a potential weapon.

It isn't just a matter of adhering to school uniform policies. Knives have been banned from schools to combat the very real threat of knife crime. Even though a Sikh will not actually attack someone with their ceremonial weapon, it presents other dangers. Another child could get hold of the weapon, other children might misunderstand and start bringing their own knives because they feel cheated that the Sikh children are allowed knives while they aren't, or feel threatened by themselves not having weapons while other people do. It is not a rule that will work if there are any exceptions made. The presence of a weapon, even if it is not used, creates an atmosphere of tension and hostility.
A symbol doesn't have to be literal.

The symbol of the Kirpan means that Sikhs are permitted to use force in self-defence. It would not be appropriate in British society today to actually draw a knife to defend yourself in the middle of a street or classroom, it would be more practical if you were taught other means. A replica Kirpan that has the blade welded to the sheath would be just as effective as a symbol for the beliefs you wish to express. It would also not diminish your standing in your community if everyone was aware that it was necessary to go to school and that a full Sikh would also be given the replica.
Respecting the 'rituals' of the school.

If the school respects the Sikh customs, they must respect the customs of the school. School rules aren't arbitrary laws, they are there to protect children, to make a school an effective learning environment and to symbolise the school as an institution, a place of learning, a highly important part of life and a significant place in a local community. Therefore, the two must understand each other's equal importance and make a compromise.
Diminishing order.

School rules need to have exceptions in relevant circumstances - if a child absolutely cannot follow a rule because of a disability, health condition, financial circumstances, distance from the school etc. Religious and other cultural requirements are considered a relevant exception. However, granting these exemptions needs to be a process we have strict control over and we should hand them out sparingly and only with thorough checks. Every time we grant an exception to a rule, it diminishes the rule, which then diminishes order within the school. Allowing a potential weapon to be carried in class is quite a major exception to the rules and therefore a bigger threat to the overall structure of order within the school. We need to think whether a school can take this much disruption.
Anything from a sharpened pencil to cutlery in the cafeteria can be used as a fatal weapon

But pencils are used in schools,just as books and bats are. The point of the school-uniform is for all kids to dress alike: to be unified as one student body. Unlike all other potential weapons in the school the Kirpan serves no purpose except to distinguish a Sikh from the rest of the student body as if colouring/ethnicity/the-turban weren`t problematic enough. Propping your Sikh child up for bullies(and bullies are a big realistic part of today's culture) with a sacred ``Knife`` is asking for trouble not just for other students but primarily for the child;himself. And what if the/a child sits on the knife? Can he handle-the-knife? Is he supposed to be on the constant lookout for bullies making swipes at his knife instead of concentrating on studies;which is why he is at school,right? Bottom line: Even if a child can be trusted with the knife/Kirpan(which is strange/arduous to postulate/fathom/digest; can school-thieves/bullies be trusted with it? I think not.
Crisis Management

1. They keep referring to the 'extreme case' of the 'stubborn child'. It is as if they think there are some children who will only ever respond when violence is used. We certainly do not advice parents to take this approach. If you label a child as an 'extreme' case, and believe that ' only' hitting will work - than that can be become a self fulfilling prophecy. It means that parents do not explore other options that have been proven more effective. Presumably as well, when dealing with the 'extreme case ' side opp outline, parents are especially likely to be stressed and angry, which increases the risk of them causing the child pain. 2. You can still teach children that actions have concequences without using violence. It doesn't follow from what team Scotland have argued that children will only be shown the good side of life and pampered. Out rebuttal of kohlbergs theory made that clear.