BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is against our culture

It is possible that they accept our culture and embrace it in certain issues, but you cannot change someone's beliefs and issues. People in foreign countries are stoutly religious - they have religion on a national scale. There are a minority of people who a stoutly religiously in this country, but not enough to make an impact on a national scale. Add to the fact that it would be shot down as we are a country embracing all cultures and religions, that is why banning it because it is against "our culture" would be wrong. Exactly: 'our' culture. Will you be banning coffee, next? (and forcing tea down everyone's throats.) What is the 'English' dress code, how many cultures is it derived from? Jeans and T-shirts ARE not English(They were invented by non-english people), Gucci,Chanel, Armani etc are not English. In-its ARE English: No more Curry for you! Pakistani/Indian restaurants all over London ARE English. The fact that 'ENGLISH' people are wearing Muslim veils is the sole reason for this debate.
It encourages terrorism

This is a weak argument in essence. Unfairly brandishing one group of people and saying it encourages terrorism is extremely far out. Lots of things encourage terrorism; USA going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan - both of these have had a much more significant effect on the likelihood of terrorism occuring than a religious garment. In essence, yes it could be used as a disguise, but then again lots of things could much more naturally. It is a flawed argument. Most of the films and books based on terrorism that came out before Muslims were equated with terrorism deal with disguises of spies and terrorist and not one that I have read or seen used the veil as a form of sidguise.Therefore to say that it encourages terrorism is wrong. Plus why not place the blame where it lies-flawed security.The Muslim women who do wear the veil do not object to revealing their faces in private to other women.Therefore this can be used to check for faces, expressions and as you believe the intent of the person.Which by the way you really cannot determine by just looking at a person.Have you not read about most serial killers and how their victims went with them willingly?
It's just a way of unfairly targetting someone

Justifiably however. It's not targetting the whole group, it's highlighting the problems of the veil within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day it can be used as a disguise and therefore poses a potential problem to the general population of people. If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? Doubt it. It's the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the veil should be banned due to safety concerns.
It is against our culture

The argument against the wearing of the veil is that it covers the face. This is very dangerous as the general public have no idea who is behind the face covering - be it male or female. It is very important that the faces of people can be seen. This is how we identify each other. In many cases the demand for the right to wear a veil is coming from young people who want to rebel against authority. Most young people do this with some fashion fad. It has already been shown that some Muslim parents are upset because their daughters are putting on veils - just to be difficult and because they can choose to do so. For religious purposes, people can cover their faces in places of worship and in personal spaces, but at work or in general public, covering the face should be illegal. British people who go to foreign countries, especially those who visit places in the Middle East adhere to the dress-code of that culture and religion. It should work both ways. Covering the face is not acceptable in UK.
It encourages terrorism

Wearing the veil came under criticism at a time when Britain and America were under threat from terrorists. These were allegedly muslim extremists. This further enhanced the case for the banning of the veil when an alleged extremist managed to get through security at an airport using his sister's veil and passport. Now this could be a criticism of the government and security for being so lax, but had the veil been banned, it would have prevented this from ever happening and as a result stopped thousands of people potentially being put at risk. It would also mean that people could see faces, and facial expressions and therefore determine what the intent of that person is. Not preventing it now could be seen as encouraging terrorism and/or acting as a shield to cover up supposed terrorists.
It's just a way of unfairly targetting someone

This could be viewed as just a way of targetting a group of people; in a nutshell using them as a scapegoat to highlight problems with the country. Removing the veil would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and therefore would cause more problems than it's worth. It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism, more criticism and ultimately making the country a worse place to live.
If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things

It's just not viable. If you ban something as sacred and religious as the veil, you're going to get people then issuing rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day if the Government feel that it is in the best interests not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. If anything happen, it is the blood being spilt on their hands, but while this is not occurring, then there should be no reason to attempt to ban it.
Supporting the banks helps the rest of the economy. Financial institutions provide the loans that b...

Supporting the banks helps the rest of the economy. Financial institutions provide the loans that businesses need to open up, innovate, and invest. With the banks afraid of risk and lacking cash, banks have little capacity to lend money. Without those loans, the pace of growth in the global economy slows substantially, and may even go into reverse. Furthermore, economic growth requires businesses and individuals to be confident enough in the economy to make investments. When the government shows that it is willing to support the economy, investors will have more confidence and economic growth increases.
The global economy is at risk of a much more severe collapse without an injection of government mone...

The global economy is at risk of a much more severe collapse without an injection of government money. Without bailouts, bankruptcy of these institutions is likely, and that has the direct effect of putting at risk those assets that the bank manages. Mortgages, investments and savings which are insured and managed by banks are at risk of losing a substantial portion of their value, which would destroy significant amounts of global wealth.
Governments are not just giving financial institutions the money. Instead, they are generally excha...

Governments are not just giving financial institutions the money. Instead, they are generally exchanging the money for shares in the company. This has two positive effects. Firstly, the government as a shareholder and partial-owner can direct the company to act in the interests of the nation, and to avoid overly risky investments. Secondly, in future the government can sell those shares and recover some (potentially all) of the costs of the bailout.
Banks collapsing also hurts individual citizens. Many pension plans and retirement savings have mon...

A natural part of the economy is the flow of money from unsuccessful companies to more successful companies. By taxing successful companies to pay for bailing out others that clearly do not have a good business model, the government is punishing those companies that made smart investment and good business decisions. Such signals discourage prudent business decisions in the future, and will result in the misallocation of capital within the economy, reducing future economic growth.
The global economy is at risk of a much more severe collapse without an injection of government mone...

The cost of the bailout is too high. $700 billion dollars is equivalent to about $2000 debt per American citizen. The cost per citizen in other parts of the world is even higher. All of this money is borrowed by the government, and for years to come, this generation and the next will be paying off that debt and its interest. This money could be otherwise used for programs that make a real, tangible difference on peopleï¿½s lives, such as healthcare and education.
Governments are not just giving financial institutions the money. Instead, they are generally excha...

Government owning large parts of businesses is bad for the economy. By adopting socialist economic policies, the government will be tempted to force the company to make decisions that might please voters in the short run, but in the long run are inefficient and bad for the economy (for example, subsidising uneconomic industries). It also centralizes greater economic power in the government that can later be abused by corrupt or inept government officials.
The government holds significant responsibility for the credit crisis. Firstly, the US government d...

The government holds significant responsibility for the credit crisis. Firstly, the US government distorted the market to encourage poorer individuals to take out large mortgages and buy houses. When a few of these people (predictably) failed to pay off the mortgage, this began the chain of events that led to the crisis. Furthermore, governments around the world failed in their duty to regulate and oversee the banking industry. Since the government has responsibility for the crisis, the government should pay to support the companies affected by it.
The rights which we enjoy in democratic countries also come with responsibilities. It is generally ...

Free speech is one of the founding principles in a democratic society and should be upheld at all costs. One reason is that legal decisions censoring those who utter hate speech can be used as a precedent to silence those the government wish to censor. This is also true in a university setting where the authorities could use their powers to silence those who they consider to be disruptive. Conversely, the precedent set by upholding the right to hate speech can be used to protect the free speech of everyone. It is true that rights must be tempered by responsibilities, however the line should be drawn with legislation against hate crimes (such a the beating of a black student) rather than the censorship of free speech. While we may abhor such views it would be wrong to censor them. It is part of the philosophy, which dictates that “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The rights which we enjoy in democratic countries also come with responsibilities. It is generally ...

The rights which we enjoy in democratic countries also come with responsibilities. It is generally agreed that an individual’s rights extend so far as they do not infringe the rights of another. Minorities have a right to be free from verbal abuse and fear. If such rights are not being respected then it is necessary to legislate. This is especially important given the divers cultural and ethnic mix in our universities. The university authorities have a duty to ensure that the campus is a welcoming place for everyone and therefore it is necessary to censor hate speech.
When the ‘quick-fix’ of abortion as a response to teenage pregnancy is no longer so easily available...

Campaigns for sexual abstinence and contraceptive awareness are to be encouraged, but should not be an alternative to abortion provision. No sensible person would choose abortion as a good alternative to contraception, because it is more dangerous, more traumatic and harder to obtain than contraceptives - it is a necessary last resort. If sexual abstinence is not a sensible reaction to abortion being made more inaccessible, then making abortion more inaccessible is not a sensible way of increasing sexual abstinence.
Abortions Pose a Danger that Parents Have a Responsibility to Assess For Their Children

We wholeheartedly reject the Prop’s suggestion that legal abortions are safe and present a teen’s best option, and that the danger for pregnant minors is parental intervention. Admittedly, parents in our world aren’t always what we wish them to be, but we insist that they do more harm than good. The Prop has denied the immense risks associated with abortion, which stretch from acute hematometra (post-abortal syndrome) to breast cancer, infertility, and increased risk for clinical depression and suicide. [[http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics]] “A large-scale, authoritative Scandinavian study shows post-pregnancy death rates within one year that are nearly four times greater among women who abort their pregnancies than among women who bear their babies. The suicide rate is nearly six times greater among aborting women than among women who give birth. These findings refute the oft-heard claim that induced abortion is safer than childbirth.”[[http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.]] The myth that childbirth is more risky than abortion is largely based on the way that statistics about abortion-related deaths are collected: such deaths are often attributed to present problems. These are risks that parents have a right and a responsibility to evaluate for their minor children, who are by law as well as by custom the responsibility of parents. So why should abortions need consent when a decision to keep the child doesn’t? Quite simply, the nature of pregnancy in most cases necessitates parental involvement, since it is rarely kept a secret, and almost always requires emotional and material support. The law need not step in where immediacy does. In truth, each of the options, including abortion, carry with them serious and long-term risks that need to be not only carefully considered, but offset with the kind of support a parent is best able to give.
Reality of the Issue

Let us look at the reality of the situation: One, consent laws aren't notification laws. Unlike notification - also ill-advised, but for different reasons - consent gives parents veto right over their daughter's abortion. Two, consent laws are mostly adopted with the express purpose that parents be able to veto the abortion. While we accept that perfectly liberal families exist which discuss sex openly and can support their teenager through post-abortion procedures, they aren't as likely to live within a legislature that passed a parental consent law as conservatives are. We need to realize that if a teen is unwilling to report pregnancy to her conservative parents, it is partly because no intra-familial discussion that could soothe her sex-induced problems took place - and mainly because it is unlikely to. Such parents are also unlikely to grant the craved consent. What next? Canada places faith in judicial bypasses, while we see they are unlikely to work properly in such societies: (a) acquiring judicial bypass is estimated to to take 22 days at minimum[[http://xr.com/telj]], (b) this figure is greatly understated in rural areas, where it is hard to get to a city judge, and in conservative areas, where judges often recuse themselves from the hearing, or deny petitions on a regular basis. Postponing abortion has serious health risks for teenage mothers; so does seeking illegal abortion service or even self-aborting, as 40 % of teens conceded they would do if they had to tell their parents[[S.K. Henshaw, "Parental Involvement in Minors' Abortion Decisions." , 1992 Family Planning Perspectives: 196-207, 213]] Adoption, unlike opposition suggests, is not a solution that would greatly alleviate the situation as we will how in our next contention. Most importantly, we elevate the risk that teens, in face of obstacles, will give birth. We expounded on dangers to individual and society if that is so; we prevent that by making abortion easier.
The decision often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being.

The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important.
Parent's responsible status in sociey

Having an abortion is far from having a surgery. Not only because of the liabilities, which significantly differ (for the teenage mother and the teenage mother only has the legal obligation to care for her children), but also because of the people we are discussing. We are talking about families where the consent will not be granted, for that is the only group that will be affected by any such law. These parents will hardly offer any kind of support – be it financial or emotional one. In most cases they have failed as parents – their children are reluctant to even tell them. All those who have understanding families are consulting them already:” In fact, 90% of minors under 15 involved a parent in their decision to have an abortion. A majority of teens who did not talk to a parent turned to another trusted adult.”[[http://xr.com/c9fj]] We see that even teenage mothers understand the severity of the situation and if the family is working, they will consult them (and if needed will receive the consent); however, the group which will be most affected by this law is consisting of families, where the child cannot trust the adult. Moreover, because of the legal liability I have adumbrated we may see that parents will not be affected by the fact whether the child has been born or not. There will always be cases (especially in very religious families), where the families will repudiate their daughter because of her pregnancy and thus she will have to take care of her own child without anyone’s support. She will be desperate, moneyless, and alone with her child. Let us now look how this will affect legal responsibilities – parents (who are responsible for their child only, not for children of their children) will be able to completely overrule decision of their daughter (who will then have the legal responsibility to look after and secure her child). We believe that opposition second-tracks those who are in the vanguard of the impact.
Individual Consequences of Teen Pregnancy

In contention 1, Proposition has stated that minors have developed “consequential thinking”- the ability to address the consequences of their actions. However, in their second contention, they have argued that 25% of teenage mothers have another child within 2 years. It appears that at least this many teenagers do not weigh the aftermath of their actions, and do not have the ability to “consequentially think” for themselves. The Proposition stated that teenage mothers endure loss of social standing, emotional health, and ability to study, find jobs, and many other consequences a teenager faces when she is pregnant. Their sole statement here was that teenage pregnancy leads to serious risks in life, both psychologically, and physically. However, they have failed to link this to the resolution, which is that a teenage mother needs parental consent for abortion. Without parental guidance, all the serious results they have stated from teenage pregnancy worsen. Parental consultation helps to lessen the psychological and physical difficulties. If the parents are aware of what is happening, they can be more perceptive of the problems their children face both prior to and following an abortion. Therefore, the Prop's contention about the ‘harms’ of pregnancy falls since its impact would worsen if teens are left to deal with the stresses of pregnancy on their own.
Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery.

Parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the baby’s mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order: in effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition.
Child-parent Relationships

As the Prop points out, there are time constraints involved with abortion, and waiting too long can increase risks. This must, however be weighed against the necessity of carefully considering the heavy risks and other issues related to the decision to get an abortion. We hope that the Prop will agree that snap decisions are not desirable in such a case; that careful thought and counsel is necessary to offset the immense risks in even a best-case scenario. The need for judicial waiver need not, as they claim, delay matters. In fact, T. Joyce’s 2010 Arkansas study [1] suggests that teens who obtain judicial waivers have earlier abortions, not later ones. Allowing teens to make emotional decisions does not mean that we are giving them what they even want, let alone what is best for them. "Where support through counseling is offered (for example, in Sweden) to pregnant women who are not sure if they should or can carry their pregnancy to term, they are more likely not to abort." [2] This suggests that abortion may not be what they choose, but the only option they believe is available to them. The Prop seems to believe that they alone have access to the ‘real case’ of pregnant teens; we contend that this claim is flippant and unsupportable. Yes, there are parents who hold their own interests in higher regard than their children’s welfare, and parents who fail to offer their children the support they need; however, we firmly maintain that such parents are a minority. Besides, as we have already pointed out, the option of obtaining a judicial waivers is sufficient to deal with this problem. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa054047 [1] http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html#eighteen [2]
In exceptional cases, we appreciate that it may be inappropriate for a child to tell her parents.

Obtaining parental consent necessarily imposes a delay into the abortion process, which increases the likelihood of complications: generally speaking, the earlier in pregnancy an abortion takes place, the safer it is. Necessary safeguards such as judicial waivers introduce even more delays - at least 22 days in the US. For the sake of the mother’s health, it is better not to require parental consent.