BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The only function of a gun is to kill

The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old.[1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better. [1‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010, http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-05/story/study-homicide-leading-cause-death-among-young-black-males
The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths

The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms

Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.
Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence

Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)
Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]  Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use.   The high levels of firearm availability in Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant contributory factors in allowing for a viable insurrection to form which has the potential to generate the political pressure necessary to cause the withdrawal of foreign occupiers. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny. [1] See also DIstricxt of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570  (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership

Much like the failure of the prohibition era to stop alcohol consumption, trying to restrict the use of guns that are already widely owned and prevalent in a society is an impossible task.[1] The people who intend to use guns for illegitimate purposes are obviously unconcerned with the fact that it is illegal to acquire the guns in the first place in countries where this is already the case such as in the UK .[2][3] [1] Kates, Don B. ‘Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control’. The Civil Liberties Review. June/July 1976 http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kates1.html [2] The Independent. ‘Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle’. 4th September 2005. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/up-to-4m-guns-in-uk-and-police-are-losing-the-battle-505487.html [3] The Guardian. ‘Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you’ 30th August 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
The only function of a gun is to kill

Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which they can protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.
The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths

Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, or converted from replica firearms rather than being stolen from registered owners.
Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms

Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. While compensation could be given the cost would be huge; in the UK shootings value to the economy was £1.6billion in 2004.[1] [1] ‘£1,600,000,000 – the value of shooting’, Shooting Times, 27 September 2006, http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/96001/pound1600000000__the_value_of_...
Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence

Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings of the offender. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result. Moreover the value of guns for self-defence is overrated.  A firearm kept in the home for self-defence is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide than against an unlawful intruder.[1] [1] Drinan, Robert F. ‘Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil’.  The Civil Liberties Review. August/September 1976  http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Drinan1.html
Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written in the age of horse and musket, where a private citizen could gain access to the same (or even better) weaponry that the state did. Unless the opposition want to remove all barriers on gun ownership completely, no armed citizenry can seriously compete with a modern military armed with tanks, drones and precision weaponry.  Popular resistance movements rely upon creating an unaffordable political cost to maintaining the occupation (e.g. The US was eventually forced from Vietnam, despite winning virtually every major battle of the war), but this assumes that the occupying power is vulnerable to that kind of pressure.  An undemocratic invader or a domestic tyranny will happily slaughter dissidents with impunity (see the pre-intervention stages of the Libyan civil-war and the 2011 Syrian uprising).
Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership

Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced.  Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced.[1]  The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations.  [1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan
Prohibition is counterproductive

Obviously, not every policy is 100% effective. However, a ban on products that is well created and adequately enforced could at least reject a material from the mainstream, and signals disapproval. Not everyone will follow a ban but many will see that the ban is there for a good reason and will not seek alternatives. Counterfeit cosmetics are a different issue – one is the attempt to capitalize off of a brand, the other is to provide a product to achieve people’s goals.
These products are dangerous

Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues[1]. States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011, http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/mercury_flyer.pdf
They fuel colourism in society

Allowing the use of racial overtones – the perception that a product will bring a person towards a “white ideal” is harmful for several reasons. It could cause communities to generate a form of inferiority complex, and it reinforces the structural difference rather than aiming to minimize it.  While it may sound absurd, in the US darker-skinned African Americans (and darker skinned latinos) are less well educated and have lower incomes[1]. Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Brazil, race is seen as an issue of colour and socio-economic background, not ancestry highlighting a much more obvious link between whitening creams and racism[2]. Is it not the role of the state to reduce that discrimination, not to fuel it? Banning such creams would help prevent such harmful effects by discouraging the notion that people should aim to make themselves lighter skinned. [1] Hunter, Margaret L., “If you’re light you’re alright: light skin color as social capital for women of color”, Gender and Society, 2002, http://www.mills.edu/academics/faculty/soc/mhunter/If%20You%20are%20Light%20You%20are%20Alright.pdf, p.35 [2] Telles, Edward, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Colour in Brazil, 2004, online sample chapter, http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7846.html
Monetizing colonialism

Skin whitening can be seen as an attempt to fit in with a form of a neo-colonialist mind-set; a form of cultural imperialism driven by capitalism. These products, often sold by big international FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies feed off a neo-colonialist mind-set – one of a cultural inferiority complex. These products form part of the process of tying African people into a globalised consumer world where non-westerners feel compelled to buy western products that they don’t need. They are therefore kept in a colonial situation where they are dependent on the west both mentally and in terms of the products they buy. That is reason enough for nations that have been victims of colonialism by the Global North to take action against them.
Prohibition is counterproductive

As tempting as it is to feel that banning is the solution to problems, it doesn’t work. Almost all states prohibits certain drugs, but that does not stop them being used.[1] Despite being banned in Ghana, skin whitening creams are still openly advertised on billboards[2]. Counterfeit cosmetics of all types exist worldwide[3], they are illegal for a variety of reasons, not least intellectual property abuse: banning skin lighting creams would simply give more space to the counterfeits. A ban could lead users towards either a homemade substance, or pills and injections which would almost certainly be more damaging as a result of a lack of regulation. [1] See the Debatabase debate ‘This House supports the legalisation of drugs’ [2] Al Jazeera English, “The Stream: Fair Beauty”, YouTube, 22 August 2013, http://youtu.be/paJmsuRBiBA , roughly 18 minutes in [3] RIA Novosti, “Counterfeit cosmetics: Turning beauties in to beasts”,  RT, 08 November 2010, http://rt.com/news/fake-beauty-russian-cosmetics/
Banning these is papering over the issue

It would be all too tempting for governments to consider that a ban on these products would sort out issues of skin tone discrimination as they would be hidden away from public view. Class and race are both divisive issues, and are often inextricably linked. Those with lighter skin will still have advantages over those with darker skin hues. The banning of whiteners will simply reduce the ability of individuals to change how others perceive them. We can all agree that there needs to be less colourism but that has to be achieved by reducing prejudices. Only broader education on the issue of skin colour discrimination can achieve such a change.
Run education campaigns instead

Education is an alternative. Campaigns such as #darkisbeautiful (dark is beautiful) in India are the model for advancing equality and marginalizing colourism in India. The campaign has had some success attracting stars, including some such as Vishaka Sing who have modelled for fairness creams, to campaign against the prejudice against darker skin tones.[1] The heavy hand of legislation is not the correct tool – other methods from social media campaigns to changing practices in the fashion, beauty and media industries (such as has occurred in Dakar Fashion Week[2]) will reduce the cultural demand. [1] Krupa, Lakshmi, ‘Dark is beautiful’, The Hindu, 8 September 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/features/the-yin-thing/dark-is-beautiful/article5104215.ece [2] Reuters, “Dakar fashion week bans models who use skin lightning cream”, South China Morning Post, 01 July 2013, http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/fashion-watches/article/1271144/dakar-fashion-week-bans-models-who-use-skin-lightening
They fuel colourism in society

Banning skin whitening on such a basis also requires the acceptance of the racial overtones. Some form of tan is popular in many societies of people of European ethnic origins – that is not a racial matter, it is more based on economic social perceptions (that of holidays to warmer climates). Ascribing a racial element to everything to do with skin tone is at best a lazy analysis. Irrespective of issues of race and perceptions of ethnic origins, and its intersection with beauty standards, some people will be given advantages in life due to their appearance. Banning a certain form of cosmetic, even if it can have some racial and ethnic undertones, won’t change that.
Monetizing colonialism

If there is a demand for it, people want it. Not only do indigenous skin-whitening products exist, they are so widespread and popular it cannot be ascribed to a “cringe” on a small area of society. It is wrong to consider skin whitening to just be a colonial import as if being white is all about looking like a westerner. Many cultures, particularly in Asia but also some in Africa such as Egypt, valued lighter skin tones before colonisation; such tones showed that you were a woman of leisure who did not need to toil under the hot tropical sun.[1] Maintaining a desire to look lighter may therefore neither be an effect of a neo-colonial mind-set nor create neo-colonial business ties. [1] Goon, Patricia, and Craven, Allison, ‘Whose Debt?: Globalisation and Whitefacing in Asia’, Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, issue 9, August 2003, http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue9/gooncraven.html
Personal autonomy

States can and do ban products that are physically or socially harmful – that’s not illiberalism, it is common sense. It clearly does not suggest that non-white women do not have the capacity; white countries such as the USA engage in similar bans for health reasons. Anyway, In a society with mass media and celebrity-lead marketing campaigns, do people really make entirely autonomous decisions? Consumers almost never have complete information about what they are buying. When they don’t the government has to prevent them from making mistakes that may be harmful to themselves.
A moral duty to play for your country

It is clear that any individual, no matter his chosen area of expertise needs the appropriate environment to achieve his maximum potential. The people involved in professional sports are no exception. They need coaches to guide them, stadiums in which to practice, sponsorship and funding to allow participation at some competitions. Any person who succeeded in making a career in sports partly owes it to the society he grew up in that provided these facilities and opportunities. Let us not forget that especially in poor areas, most of the sports trainings are done “pro bono” by good Samaritans who want to lend a hand. Therefore, as other people invested in their development, every sportsman has the moral duty to pass on that help, and also lend a helping hand towards those who weren’t as privileged.  Representing the nation is a part of this moral duty to repay that which the country has given. This improves the image of that country and allows it to get the recognition in deserves for bringing up such talented players. Cristiano Ronaldo is one of best paid soccer players in the world and mainly got to where he is due to his talent, determination and countless hours on the pitch. But he was also born in Portugal, where he took advantage of the entire football industry that exists there. If he had been born in Sri Lanka, his talent would have gone unnoticed.
Beneficial for the player

Undoubtedly, one of the most important things for a professional sportsperson is to have a long, healthy and fulfilling career. No matter what a sportspersons motivation is, whether it is the pleasure from winning or the money a player always needs to be in top form. Playing on the international level helps athletes improve themselves.  First of all, no matter of sport, the level of the sport is much more intense when it is international, as obviously, the best players are taking part in it. Santos vs Boca Juniors have always been very thrilling football matches, but none of them compare with the matches between Brazil and Argentina. If you, as an athlete, are forced to play in a much more competitive environment, then you have to bring your A-game to the pitch on every single occasion as the stakes are high every single time. In time, this improves skills and develops capabilities, as you are challenged on regular basis. Second of all, when it comes to team sports a lot of scouts are watching internationals in the hopes of spotting new potential talents for big teams. This can be a very good opportunity for players to get noticed and to receive the credit they deserve.  For example Luis Suarez transferred to Liverpool for £22.8 million in January 2011 shortly after the 2010 world cup,(1) while Alex Furgeson noted on having bought Javier Hernández ”If we had waited until after the World Cup we would have had to pay maybe three times the price”(2). If they fail to seize the opportunity, players are much more likely to remain unnoticed and unknown outside their own country. It is in their interest to be in the spotlight for the greatest amount of time, and there is no bigger stage than international competitions. (1)    Metro, ‘Luis Suarez Liverpool transfer agreed after Ajax accept £22.8m offer, 28 January 2011, http://metro.co.uk/2011/01/28/luis-suarez-liverpool-transfer-agreed-after-ajax-accept-22-8m-offer-635504/ (2)    Field, Dominic, ‘Javier Hernández lifts Manchester United spirits after week of turmoil’, The Guardian, 25 October 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/oct/25/javier-hernandez-manchester-united
Benefits to the nation

It is not just the player or athlete who benefits from taking part in international competitions but the nation as well. Every nation wants to do well in international sporting completions and every national wants their nation to do well internationally. Every country wants all of their best sportspeople to take part so that they have as much success as possible. This is partially about prestige; Jamaica is perhaps best known worldwide at the moment as a result of the fame of Usain Bolt and other successful sprinters, if it was not known for this it might instead be known for its gang wars and murder which is not what a country wants people to think of when their country is mentioned. (1) But it is also about the economy. Countries that do well in international competitions may get an economic boost as a result. Economists suggested that winning the World Cup could have a positive impact of between 0.25 and 0.5%, which if it is in the context of near zero growth can be a big impact. This is a result of the feel-good factor from the victory. And we must not forget that feel-good factor itself; wining international competitions, or even just individual events lifts the mood of the country. And if a country is successful in a sport then that sport provides an opportunity to bring social benefits through social programs to reduce violence or campaigns such as that against racism.(2) Success is however something which is much more likely if a country is able to field its best athletes and players internationally. (1)    Observer Crime Reporter, ‘Murders soar’, Jamaica Observer, 24 September 2013, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Murders-soar_15121749 (2)    The Economist, ‘Crime in Mexico: Out of sight, not out of mind’, 19 October 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21588071-having-decided-play-down-fight-against-drug-kingpins-enrique-pe-nieto-has-yet-come
Liberty

Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place. We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1) The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want. (1)    Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011, http://www.scrumqueens.com/news/canada-players-refuse-pay-play