BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women preferring circumcised men suffer from cultural ills

Mary G. Ray. "The Sexual Preference for a Circumcised Penis and its Disadvantages". Mothers Against Circumcision. 31 Oct. 1999 - "There are American women who[...]insist that the natural male is unclean and unappealing. They say they prefer a circumcised male. These women are not unlike African men who demand that their wives be circumcised. This common bond between African men and American women demonstrates an ignorant intolerance for natural genitals. Both cultures are unmindful that circumcision hurts them as well. Cutting the genitals of either gender modifies the sexual experience of the person cut as well as their sexual partners. Meanwhile, in other cultures, Europe for example, where the circumcised penis is the exception, women say they prefer a natural penis. It is natural to assume the idea that we prefer what is familiar to us. 'in other cultures, Europe for example, where the circumcised penis is the exception, women say they prefer a natural penis.'"
Separation of foreskin during puberty can be problematic.

During infancy, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis and does not yet pull back. During puberty, uncircumcised boys find that their foreskin begins to separate from the head of the penis. This process can be disturbing for children, as they come to believe something is going wrong. This can be particularly problematic and damaging to the penis if the child decides to forcefully separate the foreskin from the head before it is naturally ready. This process, therefore, introduces both psychological and physical risks.
The natural penis is clean and requires no special care

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "The natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain water during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean."
Smegma has important natural, protective function

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, 'The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.'"
Myth: circumcision is necessary later if not done at birth

Mary Ray. "Myth: Circumcision Inevitable Later". 1997 - “The overwhelming majority of uncircumcised boys never develop medical problems.” [Pantell] The fear that circumcision will be required later is unwarranted. Rates in all countries other than the U.S. are miniscule. They range from 1 in 200 in some, to as low as 1 in 600 in others."
Most male sexual health problems stem from irresponsible sex, not circumcision.

It is absolutely essential to always use a condom during casual sexual encounters and extramarital affairs. Having no foreskin is "healthy" in the trivial sense that nothing can go wrong with an absent organ. Parents should not assume that their sons will be sexually irresponsible in a way that will defy their authority, but instead should teach their sons to respect the opposite sex and themselves. And failing that, to use a condom!
Circumcision discourages masturbation by making it less pleasurable

Masturbation is considered in many cultures to be an undesirable practice. This relates to the fact that it is a form of self-gratification and because it distracts from the proper role of the male organ, which is sexual activity and procreation. Circumcision discourages masturbation because it makes it more difficult. This is because it makes it necessary to use lotion as lubrication, whereas the foreskin readily enables masturbation without lotion.
The foreskin is a brilliant product of human evolution

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human body into a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a function and purpose. Evolution has determined that mammals' genitals should be sheathed in a protective, responsive, multipurpose foreskin. Every normal human being is born with a foreskin. In females, it protects the glans of the clitoris; in males, it protects the glans of the penis. Thus, the foreskin is an essential part of human sexual anatomy."
Circumcision is a malicious tool for discouraging masturbation

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis."
Circumcision eliminates foreskin's many protective functions

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans."
Circumcision is a tradition worth preserving

Dr David Hawker. "The Benefits of Male Circumcision". CircInfo.com. March 2004 - "This is an operation as old as mankind, highlighted today by Jewish and Muslim tradition in which all males are usually circumcised as part of their faith. It is performed worldwide by many tribes and cultures as an initiation rite and, despite some aggressive opposition, it is routinely done at birth for the majority of boys in the USA as well as many in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and much of the English speaking world - except, latterly, in the UK. Overall it is estimated that a quarter of the male population is circumcised - about 750 million males. They cannot all be wrong! Yet in Europe today there is widespread ignorance of its value."
Circumcision is not a good solution to phimosis of foreskin

Phimosis is a situation in which the foreskin has difficulty retracting or returning over the head of the penis due to abnormally tight foreskin. This, however, can be solved by other means than circumcision. In addition, doctors often mistaken the natural state of the infants foreskin (which does not retract until later years) as phimosis, and subsequently mistakenly opt to circumcise the infant.
Opponents of circumcision have adopted nefarious tactics

Dr David Hawker. "The Benefits of Male Circumcision". CircInfo.com. March 2004 - "The misinformation that produced the downtrend [in circumcisions] years ago is still embedded in the consciousness of some medical practitioners who hail from the 70s, and their protégés[...]In fact there have even been reports of harassment by medical professionals (such as less well-informed midwives, nurses and doctors) of new mothers, especially those that can be more readily identified because they belong to religious groups that practice circumcision, in an attempt to stop them having this procedure carried out."
All circumcisions leave scaring and disfiguration

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin[...]Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection. The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely."
Circumcision can cause "skin bridge" on penis

Rosemary Romberg. "Circumcision - The Painful Dilemma. Chapter Eleven: Complications of Circumcision (Condensed)". Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Massachusetts. 1985 - "'Skin bridge' can result from circumcision. It is a complication in healing of the wound, by which a piece of skin from the shaft of the penis has become attached to the glans, or another point along the shaft, forming a 'bridge' that must be surgically corrected."
Circumcision better done as infant than later in life

Edgar J. Schoen, MD, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics. "Risk and Complications of Circumcision". Opposing Views: "Newborns are metabolically best suited for the operation, they heal very quickly, and the surgery is most easily done at this age, with the lowest complication rate. Complications in infants are generally slight with an incidence of about 0.2-0.4 %. At older ages the procedure takes longer, healing is slower and the complication rate, with generally mild problems, is about 10 times higher at 2-4%."
Circumcision is sometimes a necessary emergency procedure

Dr David Hawker. "The Benefits of Male Circumcision". CircInfo.com. March 2004 - "When does circumcision become necessary? There are a few situations where it is clearcut. If there is only a small opening in the foreskin so that passing urine is difficult, or when the foreskin is painful to pull back during an erection or won't return forward again. The latter is an emergency situation needing urgent surgery to avoid really serious consequences."
Complications from circumcision stem only from faulty surgery

Philip G. Klotz. "In Defence of Circumcision". Canadian Medical Association. 9 Oct. 1966 - "I am convinced that most of the current difficulties that follow routine circumcision stem from the improper use of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell technique[...]Circumcision should not be abandoned because it has been poorly performed in the past as a result of reliance on mechanical gadgets rather than sound surgical principles. It is my belief that adequate surgical circumcision of newborns should be a routine."
Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection

Sabin Russell, Chronicle Medical Writer. "Male circumcision shows promise as defense against HIV transmission". San Francisco Chronicle. 14 Dec. 2006 - "separate studies in Kenya and Uganda [in 2006] were financed by the National Institutes of Health and compared HIV infection rates between groups of circumcised and uncircumcised men and teenage boys.[...] an NIH safety panel examined interim results and found that the uncircumcised men in both studies were becoming infected at twice the rate of the men who had the procedure. The panel concluded it would be unethical to allow the experiments to continue until mid-2007 as planned without offering the surgery to the uncircumcised group."
Circumcision has sufficient medical benefits to be routine

"Task force says circumcision has benefit". Science News. 11 Mar. 1989 - "Marking a subtle but significant change of view, the American Academy of Pediatrics this week concluded there are "medical benefits and advantages" to circumcision. The nation's largest pediatric organization stopped short of recommending the procedure, which involves the surgical removal of foreskin from the penis. But the new statement, the first from the academy in five years of heated debate on the topic, represents a departure from past statements declaring circumcision has "no absolute medical indications." The percentage of boys circumcised as newborns has fallen from about 95 percent in the 1960s to about 60 percent in 1978, in part because of a growing movement among parents and some physicians emphasizing the shortage of documented medical benefits."
Dangerous cultural pressure exists surrounding circumcision

Mary G. Ray. "Like Father, Like Son". 1997 - "I am very happy for my son that he is natural. Which is more important? Having a penis that looks like mine? Or enjoying the benefits a foreskin provides? [...] It doesn’t make sense that his foreskin should arbitrarily be cut off just because they did it back when I was born. Routine circumcision is a colossal mistake. The same mistake should not be done to him simply because it was unfortunately done to me. Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s got to stop somewhere [...] All this concern about looking the same -- I think its rare for fathers, sons and brothers to pay much attention to each other’s penises. But if a difference is noticed, the absent foreskin can be so easily explained. They used to think removing the foreskin was necessary. Now they know, it’s not."
Circumcision is a rare practice in the world

Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 - "How Common Is Circumcision? Circumcision is almost unheard of in Europe, South America, and non-Muslim Asia. In fact, only 10 to 15 percent of men throughout the world are circumcised, the vast majority of whom are Muslim.29 The neonatal circumcision rate in the western US has now fallen to 34.2 percent.30 This relatively diminished rate may surprise American men born during the era when nearly 90 percent of baby boys were circumcised automatically, with or without their parents' consent."
Circumcision is akin to vaccination of infants

Dr. Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences. "Circumcision Should Be Routine; is Akin to a Safe Surgical ‘Vaccine’". Opposing Views] - "Circumcision is a simple surgical procedure that removes the foreskin, which is a sleeve of skin covering the tip of the penis. Parents have the legal right to authorize circumcision. In order to make an informed decision, they should carefully consider the benefits and risks.
Romans 4:9-12 supports the practice of circumcision.

Romans 4:9-12: "Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised."[6]
Circumcision does not interfere with sexual pleasure

"In Defense of Circumcision". New York Times, Letter to the Editor. 17 June 1990 - "Ralph Ginzburg's letter (May 13) condemning circumcision is filled with so many sensational untruths that it deserves rebuttal[...]His most ridiculous statement concerns his informal studies, when he refers to a loss of sexual pleasure that may impoverish wives and lovers. Mr. Ginzburg needs to realize that true sexual pleasure demands much interaction between two people, and if someone is dependent on a small piece of redundant skin to furnish it, he is truly impoverished."
Candidate solicitations of superdelegates damage the political process

Candidates have been aggressively soliciting superdelegates for their support. These solicitations include the use of friends of superdelegates by the candidates. Candidates have even donated large sums of money to the re-election campaigns of superdelegates who are running for office in 2008. This makes the process look "dirty", giving the impression that candidates are "buying" the votes of superdelegates.
Superdelegates strike a nerve after 2000 Bush-Gore elections

The 2000 Florida Supreme court decision that gave George Bush the presidency over Al Gore undermined, for many people, confidence in the democratic nature of the electoral process. It was felt that the decision should have been made by the voters, not the Florida supreme court. With superdelegates playing a major role in the 2008 presidential elections, citizens and writers are drawing the comparison to the 2000 Bush-Gore elections. Superdelegates, therefore, agitate unhealed wounds.
Superdelegates are the ultimate protectors

Superdelegates are those who cared about the party and its standing beyond a single election or a single candidate.If a candidate had sewed up a sufficient number of delegates for the nomination and then was ensnared in a scandal, these party officials could embrace an alternative candidate, which can secure the party in final national presidential election. They also shoulder the obligation to rescue the party when it goes off the cliff.It is instructive to review these professional politicians' choice.[1]
Superdelegates help increase the likelihood of a Democratic presidency

Superdelegates are senior party members that understand better than anyone else what is required to win in the general election. Their independent vote in the primaries helps increase the likelihood that a winning candidate is the nominee in the general election. In fact, the very reason for the establishment of the superdelegate system in 1984 surrounded a series of Democrats achieving the nomination that lost big in the general elections (George McGovern in 1972 against Nixon and Walter Mondale in 1984 against Ronald Reagan.)
Primaries are largely the internal affairs of political parties

Primaries are not intended to be a fully democratic process. Political parties have a right to free association protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Included in this, is the right to construct primaries how they want. There is not obligation that the primary elections be "fair". But, it is the party itself that has substantial authority to make the choice and to craft the rules of the primary that frame the choice. Therefore, primary elections don't have to be perfectly fair.
Primary elections need not be fully democratic

This is based on the fact that party nominations are, largely, the internal affairs of political parties. If the party wanted to deny its people the right to vote in the primaries, it would, legally, have the right to do so. But, since this would upset voters and degrade the legitimacy of the nominee to voters in the general election, such a course of action is obviously undesirable to the parties. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legal and appropriate for parties to limit voter power and democratic practices and uphold the independent voting rights of superdelegates in order to advance the internal interests of the political party.
Walter Mondale's 1984 election shows risks of superdelegate nominees

The superdelegate system was first instituted in the 1984 Democracy primary elections in which Walter Mondale became the Democratic nominee against Ronald Reagan in the general election. Mondale's nomination was decided, ultimately, by superdelegates. Some believe that this "party insider deal" undermined Mondale's legitimacy and is partly to blame for his landslide loss in the general election bid.
Superdelegates are wrongly committing before voting is done

This argument generally rests on the notion that voters should decide the direction of elections, and that superdelegates are primarily responsible for flocking to the support of the candidate that the voters select. The purpose of this is to provide the nominee a good delegate margin to strengthen their legitimacy as the nominee and to unify the party around them. But, in 2008, delegates have been committing before the voting is done.
Voters should be fully empowered to choose primary nominee.

It is true that political parties are currently given the power to choose the nominee that they desire through a process largely of their choosing, in accordance with the right to association laws. But, if it is believed that the general election must be fully democratic, why then not the primaries? The primaries are, in fact, where most partisan voters choose to their candidate. Most democrats will vote in the general election for whichever Democratic nominee arises, and most Republicans will vote in the general election for whichever Republican nominee emerges. Therefore, the real "choice" for most citizens is made in the primaries. As such, it is where citizens' have the most power of choice through their vote, and it, therefore, should be at least as democratic as the general election. Superdelegates in the primary, however, contravene this real necessity for greater democracy in the primaries.
Superdelegates often vote out of self-interest for likely winner

While some argue that it is good for superdelegates to vote according to their own beliefs because this might keep nominees more consistent with the Party-agenda, there is reason to believe that superdelegates are not voting according to their own concience and interpretation of the party agenda. Instead, it would appear that many superdelegates vote simply according to their interpretation of the likely winner of the primary nomination, because such a vote ensures that they have good standing with the nominee and possible President, whereby it becomes more possible for these party insiders to ask for favors from the President down the line.
Superdelegates represent party-leadership at national convention

One of the concerns that led to the creation of the superdelegate system was that the party leadership was not effectively represented at the national convention. But, the convention is where the party agenda is traditionally debated and re-established in every election cycle, so the presence of the party leadership is crucial. If superdelegates did not exist, the party leadership would not be adequately involved in the shaping of the party agenda, at great cost to the future of the Democratic party.
Vuvuzela ban would impose Western values on World Cup

Ryan Bailey. "Vuvuzelas might yet be banned from World Cup." Yahoo Sports. June 13th, 2010: "we should not impose Western values on South Africa. A ban would rob the tournament of part of its cultural identity, leaving thousands of locals perplexed: could you imagine being told by an international body that you could no longer drink beer at American football games, or fall asleep during baseball? The South Africans wouldn't take too kindly to having a national institution removed."
Fans respectfully avoid blowing vuvuzelas during anthems.

There have not been major problems with fans blowing the vuvuzelas during national anthems and during ceremonies. Unless these problems exist, the vuvuzela should not be banned. Fans realize that if they blow the vuvuzela during these ceremonies, that their horns may be banned all together. And, generally, they have demonstrated that they can be trusted to act appropriately and with discretion in how and when to use the vuvuzela.
Singing is bigger part of tradition of S. Africa than Vuvuzela

South African World Cup Organising committee chief executive Danny Jordaan said in June of 2010: "I would prefer singing. It's always been a great generator of a wonderful atmosphere in stadiums and I would try to encourage them to sing. In the days of the struggle (against apartheid) we were singing, all through our history it's our ability to sing that inspired and drove the emotions."[1]
Vuvuzelas are very dangerous if blown directly into the ear.

Vuvuzelas can be blown directly into another person's ear, either accidently or sometimes on purpose (out of ignorance over the effects or out of malice to cause harm). In crowded areas, this occurs with relative frequency during the excitement of the game, particularly for fans seated directly in front of those blowing vuvuzelas. The damage that this can cause should be avoided by banning the vuvuzela.