BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Such measures would be unfair and unjust

Celebrities are not "normal" people. They have been elevated above everyone else, fairly or unfairly. They enjoy benefits greater than other members of society, the massive gift packages given out at the Oscars being a sign of this. Is it not, in a sense, fairer to give celebrities punishments harsher than other members of society? They do more harm in their drug abuse - because by taking illegal drugs or abusing alcohol, they promote it to others and render it socially acceptable because they won't get punished under the current system. They deserve harsher punishments and that is what they should receive.
Punishments should be the same

This is an argument of proportionality. If there is a crime committed a punishment needs to be delivered which is proportionate to the crime. This I agree with. But it is not only the act that is important when deciding punishment but the surrounding issues and context of the crime. If a woman takes drugs, there is one punishment which she should receive, the same as a man. However, if that woman took drugs whilst looking after her children, she should receive a harsher punishment, but still the same as that of a man who takes drugs in front of his children. With celebrities, they owe a similar duty of care. They have responsibility on their shoulders by being in the public lime light. Therefore, they too should receive a harsher punishment for drug taking.
Celebrities and drugs

It is clear that young people today look up to celebrities. Magazines; the Internet; television; radio; posters; any form of media you name, there will be 'celebrities' there somewhere. Children and young people are constantly bombarded with images of what to be. Already, two-thirds of mothers feel they can't compare to celebrities. And celebrities continually flaunt the system when it comes to drugs. Pete Doherty and Kate Moss snort cocaine. Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears drunkenly drive. Yet little or no action is taken. When an average person is caught drunkenly driving, they can expect fines and possible a custodial sentence. Paris Hilton was in jail for less than an hour before being released. What image does this set for young people? The media shows people committing drug-related offences and getting away with it, and hence it makes it socially acceptable for young people. Celebrities need harsher punishments to show young people that taking drugs is in no way acceptable.
Our treatment of celebrities reflects our national stance on drugs

Celebrity is an international phenomenon. Those who we make famous can be found on the covers of magazines the world over, and they represent us on the world stage. People like Hugh Grant and Rowan Atkinson are well-known in other countries. But when our celebrities break the rules and are not punished (and it is fallacious to say that celebrities are punished equally and fairly), how does this make us look to other countries? Giving harsher punishments to celebrities who commit drug related offences shows that we can and will take a stand on drug abuse, be it alcohol or illegal narcotics. We will set an example to the rest of the world, that drug abuse is not acceptable.
Celebrities endorse drug abuse

The words "celebrity", "advertising" and "media" go together like, to use the characters from a cereal advert, Snap, Crackle and Pop. Wherever you go, a celebrity is promoting the use of a beauty product, a new cleaning product, or another ingenious way for us to part company with our money. When a celebrity takes drugs, or drinks excessively, is this not endorsing such behaviour? Isn't this just "Cannabis. Every little helps" or "Drink and drive. Just do it"? The International Narcotics Control Board has said that when celebrities take illegal drugs, it glamorises it. Making sentences harsher will discourage celebrities and make it less acceptable.
"Celebrity" is very hard to define

There are some to whom the title of "celebrity" is clearly applicable; Hollywood film stars, international footballers... However, where is the line drawn when deciding who gets a harsh punishment or not? Are wives and girlfriends included? Is a person who got voted out on Big Brother a few years ago a celebrity? Is the friend of the mother of a film star a celebrity? It is impossible to define what is and isn't a celebrity, and because of this we cannot have two separate punishment systems. Therefore, celebrities should receive the same level of punishment as normal citizens.
Everyone should be treated equally

If you were to walk into a shop, and there were two queues, one for rich and famous people and the other for the 'regular' shoppers, would you not think this was unfair? You would be upset and think to yourself "everyone is the same, just some are more fortunate than others". You would hope that everyone would be treated equally. And there are laws in place to try and encourage this. So, just as it is that famous and successful people are mostly meant to be treated equally and just as fairly in every other area (if with some slightly unfair advantages to being successful), why should they be punished any more harshly? Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Making penalties more severe for celebrities would amount to plain discrimination. Besides, no rational criteria exist to define who's more equal in law than others.
Where two-party systems have emerged it is either the result, or reflection of the will of the elect...

Where two-party systems have emerged it is either the result, or reflection of the will of the electorate. Often the two parties represent key ideological divisions within society over the direction of policy, e.g. between left and right, small government and activist government, liberalism and authoritarianism. Most voters have little interest in the minutiae of policy, but they can understand the broad political choices presented them by a two-party system and make their decisions at election time accordingly.
Where two-party systems have emerged it is either the result, or reflection of the will of the elect...

While ideology and the will of the electorate may have been a factor at one stage in the development of a two-party democracy, these are historic factors that limit political progress today. The cold war with its left/right divisions is over and ideological labels are increasingly meaningless as, for example, traditional parties of the left have embraced the market. Such historic precedents mean that third parties often find it difficult to emerge later, even if they have a decent following. The dominant parties tend to shape electoral rules to the exclusion of smaller parties, and the more dominant parties tend to be the most successful at raising funds. This eventually reduces the choice of the electorate.
Because two-party systems tend to be less volatile in terms of election results, voters retain their...

Incumbency can mean complacency. The longer people hold office, the more comfortable they become and the less likely they are to take risks and make controversial decisions. They can even end up 'captured' by lobbyists and losing touch with their electorate. The freer marketplace of ideas in a multi-party system forces politicians to adapt their message and become more responsive to minority voices.
Positive association with alcohol

How about the children see no relationship with alcohol at home? They will see drinking alcohol as something alien and wrong altogether. By giving children alcohol, you are showing them that drinking is acceptable, and they will be more likely to drink of their own accord under the age of 18. You cannot say that because a child has experienced the consumption of alcohol, they will not feel the need to drink alcohol as a teenager, with their friends, it is a totally different taboo and experience. In turn, this drinking could turn into a teenage binge drinking habit.
Positive association with alcohol

It's not all about letting your kids drink. It's about teaching your child at around the age of 17 to be responsible about it. Everyone knows that kids are going to drink especially when they reach college. It would be better for the kid to have some sort of introduction to it, or else they will go crazy with it and end up hurting them or others. If a parent strictly forbids it, the kid will rebel and find him or her self in situations where they cant get home safe so they drive themselves, unable to call a raging parent about drinking, for a ride home. >>> The point is to train them to be responsible with alcohol. "Rebellion" has been seen as the "cool' thing for generations now. Letting teens think of drinking as a "wrong" thing will make them want to do it even more
Lowering the taboo

By allowing alcohol in the home and allowing those under 18 to drink it, within reason, booze is no longer a prohibited substance; there would be no taboo surrounding it. Under 18’s would not feel the need to break against their parent’s reigns. Also, once the age of 18 has been reached the teen would not feel the need to overcompensate for the years without alcohol; they will be less likely to go on a massive booze crawl.
Alcoholic traits

There are many kinds of alcoholics, those who drink in constantly in the company of others, people who drink alone and people who drink at home. People find it hard to admit to any form of alcoholism and lie to people as to how much alcohol they have had. If a child is allowed to drink at home, and allowed a little freedom in the drinking arena, they will feel no need to hide from their parents the fact that they have consumed alcohol. This open and honest approach to alcohol goes against the traits which alcoholics have in their relationship with alcohol.
The National Institute of Abuse and Alcoholism survey

The first point to note about this survey is that it was separated into three catagories; under 15's, 16-17, and over 18's. The over 18 results would not be in dispute in Britain as that is th legal drinking age and people have the freedom to make their own decisons. 15-17 is a category which only contains two specific ages and the risk of forming alcoholism is said to be lower than the under 15 category. But the under 15 category is such a huge selection of the 22,000 people surveyed. It groups those who are 13/14 with those who are 5/6. One case study cited a case study of a girl who had "her stomach pumped at 15 after drinking from the age of three, because her mother thought it wise to introduce her to drink at home."(1) Surely this is not an example of alcohol being introduced sensibly in the home. I would think it commonsense that under 10's should not be introduced to alcohol. There is no need to introduce alcohol at such a young age. It should be introduced when the child comes to an age where alcohol appears cool. For this survey to be a reliable basis for parenting it needs to separate the undr 15 category. A further point is that the statistics in the survey may not proove the point that the NIAA have been trying to enforce, and so they have manipulated the categories inorder to suit their own conclusions and purposes. (1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3096757/Children-allowed-to-drink-at-home-more-likely-to-develop-alcohol-problems-study-suggests.html
Alcohol causes harm

There is an old saying that goes like this "don't do as I do, do as I say." It's also vitally important that the adults drink responsibly at those times, demonstrating to the young person that alcohol can be enjoyed safely, with limits. You must also know when enough is enough. By only drinking these amounts in certain company, the child is less likely to become a heavy drinker in the wrong company. It should teach them to be comfortable with their alcohol - rather than abusing it. Furthermore, its far from possible to avoid the multiple harms facing us in today's polluted world. Really, that small bit of alcohol that the proposition proposes would not cause any significant measure of harm compared to what we face on a daily basis. What we propose is to expose slightly that alcohol so as so encourage the child to become less of a heavy drinker later as mentioned above.
Recognising the role Sharia courts can play fits in well with government attempts to promote mediati...

Recognising the role Sharia courts can play fits in well with government attempts to promote mediation services as an alternative to the expensive and confrontational law courts, especially in family disputes involving marital breakdown, the custody of children and arguments over inheritance. The UK government has for some years encourged the use of mediation, so that the family courts become the last, rather than the first resort in cases of family dispute. Trained professional mediators are now widely available, yet their secular outlook makes them an unsuitable option for Muslim families. For them Sharia judges could perform the same service, being trusted by both parties to a dispute and experienced in a wide range of relationship problems.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury argued in his 2008 speech that there must be space with...

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury argued in his 2008 speech that there must be space within our secular society for religious traditions and ethical systems to be respected and accommodated. It is not viable for the secular state to claim “a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity”. Refusing to allow Jews, Christians or Muslims the means to follow aspects of their faith means that their right to freedom of religious expression is effectively denied them. For Catholic doctors, this means that they should not be forced to perform abortions; for Jews and Muslims it means recognising the role of religious law in their faith communities.
Sharia courts are in any case widely, if informally used within Muslim communities in many countries...

Sharia courts are in any case widely, if informally used within Muslim communities in many countries, even if the state doesn’t recognise their authority. Providing legal recognition for their rulings will promote better and more consistent Sharia justice, with formalised proceedings, better records and representation, and the opportunity for appeals when things go wrong. Recognition will also promote the development of high-quality training in Islamic law, and allow proper media scrutiny of their methods and verdicts. Denying their authority will drive such courts underground, and play into the hands of extremists by allowing them to capture particular courts and use them to promote their own agenda.
In multicultural societies we should respect the customs and religious values of minority communitie...

There can only be one legal system within a country, otherwise a state’s authority is compromised. Citizens must be treated equally and their rights must be guaranteed by the state, and this cannot be achieved if separate jurisdictions are recognised over which there is no public or democratic control. If individual citizens agree to settle disputes informally at a religious tribunal, that is fine – but the state should not put its seal of approval on the proceedings, nor on their outcome.
The use of faith-based courts to settle community disputes is not new. In the UK and Canada Jewish ...

Although Jewish courts do operate already in some countries, the opposition does not have to support them. It can argue that the state should not recognise and uphold their findings, especially where these may conflict with wider rights (for example, the rights of women in divorce cases). Even if Jewish courts are accepted as part of the status quo, Sharia courts should not be given the same status as they operate under different principles. Sharia law provides a system for organising the whole society, including the governing state, and so it is hard to simply pick out areas of family law and apply Sharia selectively. For this reason, any attempt to apply Sharia law partially in western countries such as the UK and Canada will lead to demands from some Muslims for a much more radical application of Sharia in every area of life.
Sharia is much misunderstood – in reality it is not a harsh system at all but humane. It emphasises...

Sharia is a very harsh system which is in conflict with the rights and values of western secular societies. As well as prescribing extreme punishments such as stonings, floggings, amputations and public hangings, Sharia also prevents Muslims from converting to other faiths, on pain of death. Women are treated by Sharia as inferior to men, with fewer rights in divorce cases (only men can start divorce proceedings and they are almost always given custody of older children) and over inheritance. We should not allow such an oppressive system to operate in a modern state.
Sharia sees women as having different roles from men, rejecting the western notion that there is no ...

The idea that women would have a free choice between a Sharia court and a secular one is dangerous. Many women in practice are oppressed by belief systems and cultural expectations, and would be required by their dominant menfolk to accept the use of Sharia. In this way they would effectively be deprived of their rights, with the state sanctioning their treatment as second class citizens. More practically, they will be treated very unfairly in divorce, custody and inheritance cases, resulting in many women (and their children) being forced to stay in abusive relationships or live in poverty and shame.
Sharia courts are cheaper and more accessible than the the civil courts of the secular state. This ...

Many people are concerned that multiculturalism has failed to produce tolerant, integrated societies of equal citizens. Instead it has resulted in inward-looking and separated communities trapped in poverty and distrustful of the majority culture. Recognising separate legal systems for minority communities would only increase the separation between them and the wider society, in which they would no longer have much stake. The answer to problems of access to the state judicial system is to recognise that there may be a problem and work to make the law more transparent and welcoming to people from all parts of society. The number of young Muslims emerging from western universities to enter professions including the law, often with great success, shows that the state system is far from being closed to minorities.
Recognising the role Sharia courts can play fits in well with government attempts to promote mediati...

Mediation has its place, but it shouldn’t replace the law and its results should not necessarily be legally binding on both parties. Mediation will often be to the advantage of the stronger party, as they can make only minor concessions to the other side, who will often be submissive and unconfident after years in a bad relationship and so prone to accepting a bad deal. By contrast the law courts are a level playing field, especially where state aid is available to help the poor gain decent legal representation (as is the case in the UK, for example).
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury argued in his 2008 speech that there must be space with...

Western countries are secular states – a development which has helped them to develop and uphold concepts of universal human rights that are not available in many countries where religion and the state are closely entwined. Even the UK, with a State Church of England of which Rowan Williams is the Head, is in practice a secular state. One characteristic of secular, liberal democracies such as Canada, the UK and France is the freedom they allow to worshippers of many different religions – again, a freedom that many states which uphold religious law codes do not extend to minority faiths. But there must be limits on religious tolerance, so that universal rights are protected and other citizens are not harmed by the imposition of religious rules they do not share, and these limits include not recognising separate legal authorities. Many would argue that we should indeed be generally reducing the role religion plays in public life, for example by scrapping state-funded faith schools and the legislative role of bishops (the UK), and ending the raising of taxes to support churches (Germany and other northern European countries).
Sharia courts are in any case widely, if informally used within Muslim communities in many countries...

One major problem of introducing Islamic law is that there is no one agreed Sharia system, but rather a patchwork of different interpretations associated with different religious and cultural traditions. These means that it is very difficult to ensure consistency of outcome, or to advise someone what their rights are in advance of a case. How is the state to intervene when two Muslims in dispute wish to refer a case to different Islamic courts?\ Another serious problem is that there are not enough trained Islamic legal scholars to serve in Sharia courts in western countries. Recognising Islamic courts would inevitably mean a great expansion in the cases brought before them, and this would result in jurists being brought in from abroad to deal with the greater case load. Such imported judges would almost certainly apply much more rigid and conservative interpretations of Sharia than are generally practised in western Muslim communities.
In multicultural societies we should respect the customs and religious values of minority communitie...

In multicultural societies we should respect the customs and religious values of minority communities, and give these recognition within the law where this does not conflict with our fundamental legal principles. In particular, Sharia courts should be allowed to adjudicate on a range of legal issues within the Muslim community, providing both parties to a case agree in advance to a religious court hearing the case. Most of these cases are likely to involve issues of family law, such as marriage, divorce and custody of children, or of inheritance. Informally sharia law is already used within the Muslim community to settle disputes over such issues, so this proposal would only formalise the existing situation – while allowing for rights of appeal which do not currently exist.
The use of faith-based courts to settle community disputes is not new. In the UK and Canada Jewish ...

The use of faith-based courts to settle community disputes is not new. In the UK and Canada Jewish courts (Beth Din) have for a long time decided on disputes within the Orthodox Jewish community, and their rulings are recognised and upheld by the state’s legal system. These courts operate generally in the same areas that Sharia law would cover for Muslims. It would be very unfair to allow Jewish courts to practice but not to recognise Sharia courts as well – and such unfairness could lead to social tensions and the alienation of Muslims from the state.
Sharia is much misunderstood – in reality it is not a harsh system at all but humane. It emphasises...

Sharia is much misunderstood – in reality it is not a harsh system at all but humane. It emphasises justice and equality, promoting moral values which liberal western societies have abandoned. The harsher punishments applied in the name of Sharia are often associated with particular interpretations of Islam – few scholars think they are to be applied in all circumstances. Some have argued that allowing Sharia to develop in western countries will encourage new thinking within Islam, and act as an alternative to the harsh interpretations promoted by some Islamic states. In any case, the proposal is for Sharia courts to provide arbitration in family and civil law matters – criminal cases and punishments would remain with the state.
Sharia sees women as having different roles from men, rejecting the western notion that there is no ...

Sharia sees women as having different roles from men, rejecting the western notion that there is no difference between the sexes. Many Muslim women believe strongly that Sharia law is divinely sanctioned and wish to take disputes to Sharia courts for resolution. Providing they have a free choice to choose whether to go to a Sharia court or a secular one, they should have the right to do so, even if western feminists wouldn’t like it.