BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Incest wrongly impairs natural human evolutionary progress

Incest is against the natural order of things. People are not supposed to mate with blood relatives, but with people from a different family. This is meant to ensure the random mixing of genes that enables variation within human offspring and the potential for evolution. Diverging from this natural order is wrong on many levels. It impairs the natural evolutionary process, which weakens human evolutionary progress and improvement. Symbolically, it diminishes the respect we place on the natural sexual order that has enabled humans to become the sacred creatures that we are. Similarly, for people of faith, it diminishes the value placed on the sexual order created by God.
Incest cannot be successfully banned

It is impossible to effectively ban incest. Couples have been engaging in the practice for centuries. This is partly because family members have always been capable of falling deeply in love. The love felt between many incestuous couples could not possibly be broken by any law banning it. And enforcing such a ban is simply not possible, as it is fairly easy to hide an incestuous relationship. Such a failure to enforce the law undermines the law itself.
Incest taboo is due to evolutionary inclination for variation

In his book The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Charles Darwin has a chapter "On the Good Effects of Crossing, and On the Evil Effects of Inbreeding." - "Although there seems to be no strong inherited feeling in mankind against incest, it seems possible that men during primeval times may have been more excited by strange females than by those with whom they habitually lived. . . . If any such feeling formerly existed in man, this would have led to a preference for marriages beyond the nearest kin, and might have been strengthened by the offspring of such marriages surviving in greater numbers."[3]
Children of incest are at greater risk of disorders

It is well known that the risks involved in blood relatives procreating are enormous. Deformities are common and genetic disorders are much more likely than in the population at large. The state has a compelling interest in preventing such suffering and the practice of incest that causes it. It is compassionate to the deformed/disordered child, the parents that must suffer through the experience, and the society that must provide for the extra health requirements of such a child.
Many things are bad for the family, but not banned like incest

David Archard. Sexual consent. Limits of Consensuality" (Book). 1997 - "The problem with regarding such alleged harms [to the family] as supplying a sufficient condemnation of incest are two fold. First, it is possible to conceive of practices or sets of circumstances which do the same sorts and amounts of damage to the family but which do not appear to be subject to the same degree of extreme moral criticism. Consider, for example, intra-familial violence, parental subscription to very rigid or fundamental religious views, extreme poverty, ready toleration of and participation in criminality, excessive parental coldness or emotional indifference, and so on."[4]
Adults taught incest as children cannot fully consent

Kissing and cuddling (in a different context, the natural displays of familial affection) can be used over years on an underage person to ensure that their view of sexuality is firmly based on a sexualised family environment and to ensure that, by the time they do come ‘of age,’ that they are firmly on the path to commit incest. Therefore, an adult raised in an incestuous environment is not really a consenting incestuous adult, but rather an individual indoctrinated in incestuous behavior without full consent.
Difficult enforcement is no cause for legalizing incest.

The law should not consider the expediency of enforcement. The question is only whether a law is just. In the case of incest, a ban is just for the reasons presented here, so is justified. It does not matter that enforcement of the law may be difficult or appear harsh on those that violate the law. If individuals decide that they are above the law and able to violate it, they should be punished in the same way as any other individual.
Adult incest can occur after family years

David Archard. Sexual consent. Limits of Consensuality" (Book). 1997 - "The problem with regarding such alleged harms as supplying a sufficient condemnation of incest are twofold. [...] Second, we are left with the cases of siblings separated at or shortly after birth who, on being reunited, experience overpowering feelings of mutual attraction which may lead them into sexual intimacy. Such cases (and there are very occasional cases of parent-child incest along the same lines) are rare but well documented. It does not seem that any straightforward appeal to the damage that these incestuous relationships will or might do to the institution of the family is open to those who insist that, nevertheless, they remain deeply immoral."[5]
Incest is taboo without a clear rationale as to why

Incest has been bashed for centuries by society. But, beyond repeating the mantra that it is "unnatural and contrary to the history and tradition of the family institution", there is not much substantive argument surrounding why incest between consenting adults is supposed to be wrong. Yes, reproduction between blood relatives does contain some risks, but is there a well-founded argument against its morality beyond this? Not really. If two individuals deeply love one another, why is wrong for them to follow their desire?
Inbreeding is unsustainable for society, so is bad law.

The children of incestuous parents are much more likely to see incest as acceptable and to, therefore, engage in incest themselves. The problem with this is that second-generation incest is even more likely to involve medical and genetic problems. Third-generation incest is even more risky, and so on. Therefore, incest is an unsustainable social model. To this extent, a ban on incest is good social, public policy. And, to the extent that incest is bad for society and its collective interests, incest is immoral.
Incest ban is inappropriate tool

"Inbred obscurity: improving incest laws in the shadow of the "sexual family". Harvard Law Review. June 2006: "the anthropological rationale put forward most famously by Professor Claude Lévi-Strauss — that incest prohibitions are a necessary mechanism for building society by forcing people to create alliances outside of narrow family groups — seems entirely inadequate as a reason to prohibit consensual relationships in a modern world whose social integration is not plausibly threatened by the few people who might choose to align themselves with family members."
Citizens must tolerate "immorality" such as incest.

The case against incest is based on an application of biblical rules that have little to do with today’s inclusive and tolerant principles. Modern citizens must learn to live with people who perform deeds they consider abhorrent, but which do not directly harm other individuals. Citizens can certainly protest, but to ban outright a certain practice on the simple basis of "immorality" is unacceptable in modern democracies.
Outlawing incest opens slippery slope to other prohibitions

"The case against love: A recent legislation on incest". University of Oxford. April 8, 2008 - "the slippery slope argument cuts both ways: Forbidding the brother-sister love might yield future amendments in legislation that are more than questionable from a moral point of view – particularly because, as outlined above, a legislation consistent as regards the aspect of protection from hereditary diseases has to forbid a lot of relationships and thus get into conflict with the right to self determination."
Mandates in society are very rare and exceptional

A Congress Budget Office report on the 1994 health insurance proposals of the Clinton Administration in the United States: "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law."[4]
Mandating health insurance is socially regressive

Marcia Angel. "Should health insurance be mandatory". New York Times. June 4, 2009: "A mandate is also extremely regressive. In Massachusetts, mandated insurance and co-payments can amount to nearly a third of income. Income taxes apportion the costs of public services more fairly, and I see no reason not to adopt that approach in paying for health care. To be sure, President Obama has said he would exempt people from the mandate who couldn’t afford to purchase their own health insurance. But aren’t these precisely the people most in need of it? Massachusetts has exempted 62,000 people from the mandate for that reason."
Uninsured degrade care for all; mandates appropriate

Kyle B. Jones. "Mandates necessary for reform, cost control." The Salt Lake Tribune. October 2, 2009: "When a significant number of patients is unable to pay for care, such as the 20 percent of Americans currently in that situation, not only do costs increase for everyone but quality of care decreases, as limited human and material resources are drained to support those unable to financially contribute to the system. [...] Evidence strongly supports that these issues already significantly affect all of us, directly or indirectly. When someone without insurance gets sick, we all get to pay the price."
Mandates unnecessary in a single-payer system

Marcia Angell. "Regressive and Unaffordable". New York Times. June 9, 2009: "There would be no need for an individual mandate in a single-payer system, since everyone would be covered automatically and it would be paid for through their income and payroll taxes. So asking me, a supporter of a single-payer health system, about mandates is a little like asking someone whether he’s stopped beating his wife."
Mandates will not produce universal care as many will not comply

Glen Whitman. "Hazards of the Individual Health Care Mandate." CATO. September/October 2007: "The Problem of Noncompliance [...] of course, the mandate will not work exactly as planned. As anyone who's ever driven over 55 mph knows, mandating something is not the same as making it happen. Realistically, some individuals will not comply. [...] Forty-seven states currently require drivers to purchase liability auto insurance. Do 100 percent of drivers in those states have insurance? No. For states with an auto insurance mandate, the median percentage of drivers who are uninsured is 12 percent."
Mandatory health insurance is analogous to mandatory car insurance

Mandatory car insurance is accepted as an important and necessary means of protecting other drivers, so too should health insurance mandates be accepted as a means of protecting other taxpayers. If one driver hits another and does great damage to the car and individual, it is necessary that the driver has health insurance to pay for the damages. If they do not, than the blameless, injured party will not be adequately compensated, and may be left footing the bill for life-long medical bills. The analogy with health insurance is that "freeriders" without insurance are making health insurance intolerably expensive for everyone else. They should, therefore, be required to purchase health insurance to protect the other "drivers" in society. This analogy and line of logic has been utilized by Barack Obama, who said in September of 2009: "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."[5]
Mandatory health insurance ensures appropriate pooling of risk

Keith Girard. "Health Care: The Case for Mandatory Universal Health Insurance." All Business. April 2 2009: "'Insurance, in its simplest form, works by pooling risks: many pay a premium up front, and then those who face a bad outcome (getting sick, being in a car accident, having their home burn down) get paid out of those collected premiums,' explained Katherine Baicker, a professor of health economics at Harvard’s School of Public Health. [...] Insurance works because not everyone will fall sick at the same time, so it is possible to make payments to those who do fall sick even though their care costs more than their premium, by tapping the pooled insurance premiums. Thus, the system is undermined by the uninsured, both healthy and unhealthy. [...] when healthy individuals choose to go uninsured, the model breaks down as well, because they are limiting the pool of reserves available for those who are sick. If they wait until they are sick to get insurance, they defeat the purpose of insurance, too. That’s why Massachusetts, one of the states leading health care reform efforts, requires universal participation in its health program."
Health insurance mandates need not be perfectly enforced to be effective.

The most important thing with health insurance mandates - and penalties for non-compliance - is that they create a general incentive to buy insurance and a general discouragement of going without. This will certainly help close the gap of the uninsured, strengthen the risk pool among the insured, and generally improve insurance costs and quality as a result. Of course, many people will still shirk the mandate and their responsibility to obtain insurance. But, as long as a significant number of uninsured are compelled to get insurance as a result of a mandate, the mandate will prove beneficial to the system, the insured, those formerly uninsured that now have insurance, and the country as a whole.
W/o mandates insurers focus on risk instead of costs

Linda J. Blumberg, Ph.D., and John Holahan, Ph.D. "The Individual Mandate — An Affordable and Fair Approach to Achieving Universal Coverage." The New England Journal of Medicine. July 2, 2009: "the voluntary insurance system has also distracted insurers from developing incentives and mechanisms for efficiently managing health care costs. Because total health care expenditures are so concentrated — the most expensive 5% of the population accounts for half of aggregate health care spending, whereas the bottom 50% of spenders account for only 3%1 — the gains to insurers of avoiding the sick outweigh any possible gains from managing their care. As a consequence, resources have been devoted to such avoidance at a direct cost to effective care management. National health care costs continue to grow at rates well above inflation, but there has been precious little incentive for the private sector to devote its innovative energies to controlling them. And identifying ways to provide care more effectively and efficiently to people with serious medical needs is the only path to achieving the savings we all seek, since it is on such care that the bulk of the system's dollars are spent."
Mandatory insurance violates right of individual judgement

Paul Hsieh. "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America". The Objective Standard. Fall 2008: "Mandatory insurance violates the rights of insurers and individuals to act on their own judgment. [...] A right is a legitimate freedom of action—a freedom of action necessary for the maintenance and furtherance of human life. The right to act on one’s judgment—which means, the right to act on one’s basic means of survival—is one’s basic right. Mandatory insurance violates this right by forcing insurers to sell and customers to purchase insurance on terms and prices dictated not by their own judgment, but by government decree, thus destroying the very conditions that make insurance a value. This is what has caused the disastrous economic consequences in Massachusetts."
Automatic-enrollment is better alternative to insurance mandates

Stuart M. Butler. "Defining the 'Hardship Waiver'". New York Times Room for Debate. June 4, 2009: "President Obama should propose using a mandate as the last resort, not the first. It turns out that you can get most people to sign up for something by using “automatic enrollment,” where the default is that you are signed up unless you actively decline. Part B of Medicare is voluntary, and yet thanks to automatic enrollment about 96 percent of eligible seniors are enrolled."
Mandatory insurance can be subsidized for the struggling

Linda J. Blumberg, Ph.D., and John Holahan, Ph.D. "The Individual Mandate — An Affordable and Fair Approach to Achieving Universal Coverage." The New England Journal of Medicine. July 2, 2009: "Although the shortcomings of the system for the high-cost population are many and well documented, most people who are excluded from the current health insurance system have low incomes. Two thirds of the uninsured have incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level (100% being $10,830 for an individual and $22,050 for a family of four in 2009).2 With the average employer premium today running approximately $4,800 for an individual and $13,300 for a family (with estimates based on average premiums for 2006 with adjustment for inflation3), such an expense would amount to 22 to 30% of income for those at 200% of the poverty level — much too high to be considered affordable. For people with lower incomes, such expenses would be even more crushing. As a consequence, the inclusion of everyone in the health insurance system will require substantial government subsidies to Americans with modest incomes. Without such assistance, a requirement to participate in coverage would be unfair and unjustifiable. A requirement for all to enroll in coverage must therefore carry with it a government commitment to make adequate coverage affordable at all income levels."
Mandatory insurance violates right to engage in contracts

Paul Hsieh. "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America". The Objective Standard. Fall 2008: "Mandatory insurance violates individual rights in several ways. First, it forbids individuals and insurers from contracting voluntarily in a free market. In Massachusetts, individuals must choose between one of only a few government-approved plans.35 The terms of these state plans were not determined by patients and insurers negotiating in a free market. Instead, major elements, such as the prices of the plans and details of prescription drug coverage, were decided by the ten members of the government-appointed “Connector” board after ferocious lobbying from pressure groups including “business, labor, medical professionals and needy patients.”36 This is a classic example of what philosopher Ayn Rand called the 'politics of pull.'"
Employers should be required to offer insurance to employees

Leslie Dach, executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations for Wal-Mart, said in July of 2009: "At Wal-Mart, we believe in shared responsibility and support an employer mandate that is broad and fair. We believe the mandate should cover as many businesses as possible, and cover part-time as well as full-time employees. Any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers or disincentives to hiring workers with disabilities, entry level employees, or people from low income families."[8]
Auto insurance is "quid pro quo" for license to drive.

The state issues drivers licenses as a privileged. With that privilege comes responsibilities that are rightfully demanded by the state, in a quid pro quo fashion, such as the demand that the driver obtain auto insurance in order to protect other drivers on the road. Yet, there is no such contract-like quid pro quo arrangement in the case of health insurance mandates; being alive is not a privilege like driving is, and so is not something the state can bargain with in a "quid pro quo" fashion - licensing the right to live in exchange for a mandate to acquire health insurance.
Insurance mandates require costly government subsidies

Paul Hsieh. "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America". The Objective Standard. Fall 2008: "Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Because the mandated insurance is so expensive, the government has had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not only for lower-income residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as $60,000 for a family of four—which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.17 The state had expected a 'significant drop in spending . . . for the uninsured” but has since acknowledged that this 'is not going to happen to any large extent in 2009.' Instead, overall costs to the state have risen by more than $400 million, 85 percent more than originally projected."
Mandates protect taxpayers from burden of uninsured

Stuart M. Butler, an adjunct professor in public policy at Georgetown University and the vice president for domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, wrote on the New York Times' Room For Debate in June of 2009: "A mandate to buy what? In automobile insurance it’s typically to protect other people against the damage the driver might do to them. The parallel in health is a mandate for me to buy insurance to cover emergency and catastrophic costs that you (taxpayers and insured people) would be stuck with if I can’t pay my hospital bill."
Health insurance mandates preserve markets, limit govt

Ronald Bailey. "Mandatory Health Insurance Now!" Reason. November 2004: "The answer proposed by John Kerry and John Edwards is to continue the creeping socialization of medicine that Americans have been experiencing since the 1960s. That course would mean the end of private health care in the U.S., and with it the unparalleled medical progress that has benefited patients in this country and throughout the world. It would have a disastrous impact on medical innovation and the quality of care. [...] The Bush administration, for its part, has failed to offer a coherent alternative to piecemeal nationalization of health care. But the increasingly successful campaigns to privatize Social Security and expand school vouchers suggest a way out: mandatory private health insurance. Under this system, in effect, purchasing health insurance would be not much different from buying car or homeowner's insurance today. As a result, we could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion."
MA insurance mandates are performing pretty well

"Misinformed on Massachusetts." New York Times. February 2, 2008: "I’ve been getting a fair bit of mail from people who have heard that things are going very badly in Massachusetts. And there have, indeed, been some very downbeat reports in the media lately. The problem is that they’re all wrong. People are confusing an increase in costs that was largely (not completely) anticipated — after all, the plan is supposed to cover more people, and subsidize their coverage — with a cost overrun. [...] The fact is that the plan does seem to be making a serious dent in the number of uninsured. One thing that has come to light is that there may have been more uninsured people in Massachusetts to start with than previously estimated, so there’s a steeper hill to climb. But claims that it’s all a disaster are based on nothing but bad journalism."
Insurance mandates force citizens to buy special-interest benefits

Paul Hsieh. "Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America". Christian Science Monitor. September 30, 2009: "Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment – raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political pull."