BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Young children need to be protected from the internet

Young children (by this I mean primary school age) should be protected from some aspects of the internet- since the internet is largely unpoliced and therefore near impossible to control, there are a lot of things that wouldn't be shown to children via other media (e.g. television) which would be easy for a child surfing the internet to stumble across. Also, internet filters in primary schools are much more effective than those used in secondary schools, because primary school children don't yet know how to use proxy servers to fool internet filters (as most secondary school students do).
It is important that schools trust students

When a school installs a internet filtering, it is a not-so-subtle message that it does not believe its students to be capable of controlling themselves, or that there exists certain information which they cannot handle. Asides from being generally paternalistic, this attitude actually hinders the development of students. In order for a student to develop any sort of self-control or self-confidence, he or she must be entrusted with the ability to make decisions for his or herself. A secondary-school must operate knowing that its rules cannot bind students forever, and so must move to make sure that students behaviours are motivated from internal commitment rather than external pressure. So long as the school denies students the oppurtunity to be distracted - and by extension, the oppurtunity to choose to focus - students cannot learn self-control. The second message sent by internet filtering is that there exists content which students brains cannot handle, and that they are too immature to make decisions about this for themselves. Allowing students access to contraversial material is of fundemental importance to their ability to develop critical thinking. Without it, they have neither the impetous provided by the material, nor the confidence provided by the school's trust in their mental maturity. Even if a student would never search for illicit material, they are still reminded by the system that the school does not believe them to be capable of exercising discretion.
Secondary school students need to work at school rather than surf the internet

Although I agree that students should be working while at school and not surfing the Internet for inappropriate content, it is not true that the only sites schools block are sites that "contain sex or violence, or social networking sites". These are some of the main things that school filters will block, but there are many more sites that the filters block that do not have these types of contents. For example, many news sites (such as CNN) are blocked because they may contain amounts of violence in articles or pictures. Although they may have violence, generally they are reporting news and not set up to harm or hurt others. There are also word associated filters that could block educational sites. For example, if the word "bra" is blocked it could be impossible for a student or even teacher to access sites on Algebra because it contains the word "bra" in it. Therefore sites that may be very useful are unintentionally blocked because of the restrictions that would otherwise be of use.
Filters protect teachers as well students.

I can understand being upset when I get on an inappropriate site. This is especially embarrassing if there is an adult nearby. However, I can just close out of the window or explain to the adult what happened. I don't need to sit there staring at the objectionable content getting upset. What is far more upsetting is seeing your website get blocked for unjust reasons. My favorite website is not a porn website. It doesn't give me instructions on how to build a bomb and it doesn't encourage violence or anything like that. Nevertheless, it's been blocked and the school won't unblock it. This upsets me far more than accidentally seeing objectionable material.
Internet filters unintentionally impede ability to work

In response to this point, side proposition will demonstrate that the system does not hinder school-work to the point where the benefits of the system are outweighed. It is extremely unlikely that a filter will ban all sites with information on a topic. While it may require additional research, the marginal costs of this are outweighed by the protection the system provides. Furthermore, most school filtering systems includev a mechanism by which a teacher can override the ban, allowing access to a improperly banned website. This allows research to continue in the event that a ban was applied improperly.
Students Must be Trained About Safe Internet Usage

While such education is of utmost importance, it is very hard to convince young minds that any kind of material would be "a threat" to them. Most kids are not that aware of their own mental, emotional, and ethical development as human beings. It is hard, for instance, to convince a young girl that watching pornographic sites is "bad" for her. Most girls already realize that when many girls turn 18 they sell their bodies and have their sex tapes put on the web to make easy money. This is true especially in bad economic times like this when high school grads have few prospects of finding a job. There is no point hiding from them what goes on because eventually they are going to find out anyway. Then most youngsters will reason, since they already know about it, why shouldnt they watch the videos where they are actually having the sex? Educators are more aware than the children, that allowing such videos to be viewed, while not a direct threat, tends to normalize and encourage such behavior. Especially since the videos only show the pleasurable aspect of such behavior and not the negative consequences that often ensue. Thus the educators may rightly wish for some sort of control over browsing activity. The children will not see it that way. Similarly, one may wish to keep an emotionally troubled male student from visiting sites that encourage violent behavior. However most boys, actually not even adults are emotionally self-aware enough to tell themselves: "this site includes the views of a radical terrorist and by reading this I may not immediately be convinced to go out and start shooting people but I am already in an emotionally downward spiral and this sort of material will only add to my angst and indeed may even push me over the edge by subtly convincing me that killing is a justifiable act." If they are curious enough, they will look at it. And then they will want to taste it. Forbidden fruit. Therefore, while good education on "safe browsing" is important, one must be not be naive about human nature and be realistic about its actual benefits.
Secondary school students need to work at school rather than surf the internet

Children in secondary schools will generally have full access to a computer at home anyway, and will probably have already been exposed to things that would be unsuitable for young children (e.g. explicit language, videos on sites such as Youtube that could disturb young children), so exposing them to these things is not really the problem- students jn secondary schools will know how to use the internet better than primary school pupils, so won't accidentally stumble onto something explicit. This doesn't mean, however, that I think that secondary schools should not use internet filters on their computers, because if older children/teenagers are using computers at school then they should be working, rather than perusing the internet- teenagers would also be more likely to look at inappropriate websites than primary school children (being a teenager myself, and after worked in a computer library for a year, I know that this is true from personal experience, having had to kick some of the younger kids- 13/14 years old- out of the library for watching porn on the computers). I can't imagine how school internet filters would 'stifle student exploration'- usually the whole point of students being allowed onto the internet is for them to explore a given topic; the only sites that school computers block are ones that contain sex or violence, or social networking sites (which are generally blocked because of the danger of cyberbullying on them).
Sport has lots of social benefits. Sports programmes can give people a positive purpose and somethi...

Sport has lots of social benefits. Sports programmes can give people a positive purpose and something to do. Small amounts of money spent on supporting sports have been shown to reduce crime a lot. In schools periods of activity doing sports send children back to their desks with better focus on their work. On a larger scale, sport can also be at the centre of efforts at urban renewal. Many cities have used a new sports stadium to draw people back to run down areas. Other businesses have followed the sports fans. Over time this investment pays off in higher tax revenues for the city.
Sport is a great way to stay fit and healthy. This is very important today as few people have jobs ...

It is important to keep fit, but sport is not the only way to do this. Eating well is a big part of a healthy life, and many people prefer to exercise in other ways, for example jogging, working out in a gym, dancing, or even gardening. On the other hand, sport can actually be dangerous. Millions of people are hurt playing sport each year, some of them very seriously. Professional athletes spend much of their time getting over injury. Being hurt by another player is common in contact sports, such as boxing, soccer, football, rugby or hockey. Other injuries often happen because players are pushing their bodies too hard or for too long, in training or competition.
Sport is a great way to stay fit and healthy. This is very important today as few people have jobs ...

Sport is a great way to stay fit and healthy. This is very important today as few people have jobs with physical labour and most of us travel everywhere by car. As a result many people are overweight and suffer poor health. Sport may not be the only way to keep fit, but the competition and teamwork in sport give people a lot of motivation to keep going and to push themselves hard.
Sport teaches us big lessons for life. Most sports involve teamwork and teach us how to get along w...

Sport does teach children lessons, but not always good ones. Many children are not naturally talented and only come across failure and embarrassment on the sports field. This hurts their confidence and may put them off any sort of exercise for life. Plenty of other activities can teach teamwork and other life skills, for example hiking and camping, playing in a band, or raising money for charity.
Sport teaches us big lessons for life. Most sports involve teamwork and teach us how to get along w...

Sport teaches us big lessons for life. Most sports involve teamwork and teach us how to get along with others, how to work together to achieve a common goal, and about trust and responsibility. All sports teach us about dealing with success and failure. They also help people learn about coping with pressure and the need to stick with training in order to improve yourself. True, some sports do not suit some people, but there are so many possible choices that everyone can find a sport to enjoy.
Sport is competitive because life is competitive. In the past humans were hunters and fighters and ...

Sport makes people too competitive and encourages the worst sides of human nature. Sport is far from fair - the urge to compete leads many people to go too far to gain an unfair edge. Even amateur sports have plenty of cheats, a lack of respect for referees and drugs problems. These problems are worse in professional sport where the need to make money adds further pressure to win by any means. Too much competition can also be bad for you - doctors find that sports fans often feel stress and depression as a result of following their team.
Sport is competitive because life is competitive. In the past humans were hunters and fighters and ...

Sport is competitive because life is competitive. In the past humans were hunters and fighters and that spirit is still in us. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious and working hard to achieve the aims you set yourself. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting to do better than someone else. By playing sport children learn about competition and adults have a controlled outlet for aggression. But sport teaches us to compete fairly, within the rules. It balances competitiveness with teamwork and the need to respect the other side.
Sport encourages a sense of belonging and identity, bringing people together in our fragmented socie...

Sport also encourages tribalism and an us-against-them attitude. The unity of the group depends on feelings of aggression and hostility towards other groups. This is true for fans of club teams and can be seen in football violence (hooliganism) in England, Holland and Italy. It happens at boxing matches and even in college sports in America. Hooliganism also happens between countries - every time England play Germany it renews memories of the Second World War. Violent fans have also been a problem at the African Cup of Nations and even at cricket matches.
Sport encourages a sense of belonging and identity, bringing people together in our fragmented socie...

Sport encourages a sense of belonging and identity, bringing people together in our fragmented society. This is true of playing sport, and also of watching sport and following a team. When cheering your side on, you can forget about your everyday worries and enjoy sharing in a group experience. It also brings people from different classes and backgrounds together - after all, sport is a universal language. At national level, it can bring unity and pride to a whole country and help overcome differences.
Sport gives us role models to look up to and try to copy. This is very important for young people f...

Sports stars are bad role models for young people to follow. Many behave badly, on the field and off, and so set a bad example to children. But even those who behave well are not good examples to follow. This is because top athletes don’t need a good education. Children who hero-worship them could easily come to think that sport is more important than working hard in school. It is also bad that sport is seen as the best way for people from ethnic minorities to become well known. Shouldn’t they be celebrated for their work as scientists, doctors, and teachers, or in business?
Sport has lots of social benefits. Sports programmes can give people a positive purpose and somethi...

Sport today is about money rather than taking part. Greed has ruined any good that was once in sport. Success for professional teams now depends upon having a rich owner who can buy up talented players. Players have no loyalty to the club which trained them from childhood, but go wherever the money is. Some athletes have even changed nationality for money. Advertising is everywhere, including on the pitch and the players shirts. Fans are seen as consumers, willing to overpay for any item with the team logo on it. Even the Olympics has become one great marketing exercise, rather than a celebration of sport.
The rule restricts voter choice. Voters may wish to elect a person who is unable to stand. An obvi...

The rule restricts voter choice. Voters may wish to elect a person who is unable to stand. An obvious comparison should be drawn with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the most populous state, California. Voters in their millions elected him to the highest executive position in the state. If he had not been allowed to stand, that choice would have been withheld from them.
The rule is asymmetric with other rules on race. Discriminatory rules in all other positions – CEOs...

The rule is asymmetric with other rules on race. Discriminatory rules in all other positions – CEOs of companies, the Supreme Court – stress equality, not distinction. Indeed the law requires employers in all other circumstances not to discriminate as the law overtly does here. It sends an clear signal that the very top of American society is closed to those of particular backgrounds.
America is a melting pot of different cultures. If the highest office were open to someone original...

It’s true that there is a melting pot. There are Hispanic Americans, black Americans. The important thing is that they are, first and foremost, American. The symbolic advantages of allowing a foreign-born person to run for the highest office are outweighed by the practical importance of the office. We need a guarantee that the primary loyalty of the President, of the most powerful person in the country, is to the USA, and not any other nation. Even if a foreign-born US-citizen feels entirely American, who knows what divided loyalties they might feel if a particular crisis involving their original homeland blew up? And even if they were not torn emotionally in such a situation, the perception that they were not 100% American could be very damaging both at home and abroad.
The restriction may rule out the best candidate. Millions of US citizens today were born elsewhere ...

There’s a pool of over 200 million eligible people and three of four people in each generation can ever reach the Oval Office - so the odds on there being suitably qualified candidates are pretty good. There’s room for the very best in there; you may not be getting them under the status quo, but isn’t that rather more about the party system, the need for a fortune to run, the restrictive and vitriolic nature of campaigning..?
The rule restricts the right to stand and creates two classes of citizenship. If a foreign birthplac...

The right to stand is restricted all the time – on the grounds of age, for example. The presidency requires a higher age than all other state-imposed age boundaries – higher than driving, smoking, voting, copulating, standing for Congress, etc. It is marked out as different. This restriction is therefore entirely in keeping with the approach to the Presidency – requiring more from those who aspire to the office.
America is a melting pot of different cultures. If the highest office were open to someone original...

America is a melting pot of different cultures. If the highest office were open to someone originally not from the country it would be a vivid demonstration of its meritocratic principles – of the universality of the American Dream. Anybody can achieve the very highest in America, if only they work hard enough. Being American isn’t just a racial question – it’s also an aspiration. People came from across the seas, leaving home and all they knew, because they wished to become part of the American model. There is obviously a limit to the extent to which this aspiration can be realised, as long as some jobs are kept away from newcomers, but it is also symbolic of a ceiling aimed at keeping immigrants down.
Cloning

One of many bad things in genetic engineering is cloning. Cloning is a process where we make same creatures from its DNA. On one side, you have a mathematical badness of cloning. Dolly was a sheep created by a process of cloning. It has created in 1996. It died in 2003 because of many circumstances. To make a good product of cloning you need to test a really huge number of units. So, it means that if you want to create "healthy" Dolly, you need to test a million of "unhealthy" Dollies. And there is the chanse that you will make some unit in 2050 maybe. That is not good because you cannot sacrifice a millon for just one! On other side, there is an ethical measures. Just imagine that you create a million of Dollies. Then imagine that you create a million of people. Definitely, that is not ethical. Thus, cloning devalues the value of human life.
The question of safety

On the other hand, proponents of genetic research defend engineering as a misunderstood pathway to medical progress. Chromosomal frequencies are a dynamic thing, changing naturally from one generation to the next. Individuals host a variety of genetic mutations, some of which are inconsequential, some that are harmful. For advocates, the ability to remove and replace defective genes with healthy ones is a tremendous medical tool for the prevention of disease, similar in achievement to the development of penicillin or the oral polio vaccine. GMOs, despite any shortcomings, have empowered agriculturalists to produce robust foods, resist crop diseases, and make more nutrition available to the developing world. Since the same benefits might be reaped by modifying human genetics with similar intentions, the risks may be no greater than any other gene manipulation.The question of safety, given medicine’s current rigorously regulated R&D methods, may be minor compared to the quality of life human genetic engineering could offer.
Cloning

Cloning, in Dolly's case, was to realise a previously inaccessable idea. It was an excercise in popular science to try to create a story that would capture people's imagination and to concretely show that which had been only expressible in theories, equations and petri dish's. It was not a test for the efficacy of cloning as a means of production. As for the ethical considerations which would come into play were human cloning to happen... They would, of course need to be thouroghly discussed and considered. But for the life of me, I cannot forsee a reasonable set of circumstance's which would lead to human cloning being benificial for any purpose. If someone were to clone one person a million times it would indeed raise ethical issues... So do a lot of potentialities that have next to no chance of happening. Genetic modification does have the potential to cause harm, as does any tool that has ever been used. This particular tool has the potential to alter so many lives and so many future lives for the better, that i find it extremely difficult to understand, in any solid sense, how there could be an argument against. Ones that i can think of such as "design a child" or patenting wheats that are resistant to round up and owned by monsanto, who own the wheat, or religion etc are problems with the society not the tool. If the tool CAN be used to better lives, then it should, if it doesn't then the SOCIETY not the tool is wrong.
Food

Genetically engineering food will expand how much we get, how it comes out and when it does. If we GE our food, we can grow more in a short amount of time and a lot of it. We can GE animals to get leaner meat , GE crops to make them grow before winter hits and make sure all the food can withstand any random harsh weather and still come out good.We may even be able to grow them in diffrent climates and places.
The question of safety

One of the main concerns with genetic engineering is the potential to permanently alter what is known as the “germline”, or the fundamental base of genes that are passed on to future generations. Genetic modification is not yet well understood. Simple changes in one area of a chromosome can have unintended consequences later on. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, were created starting in the 1970’s to enhance agricultural production. Decades later, GMOs have experienced a reversal in popularity, with opponents citing issues with environmental impact, economic manipulation, and some evidence of an adverse effect on human metabolism. Since genetic alterations are permanent, there may never be a way to determine the long term safety of such modifications in the human population, nor any recourse to correct unforeseen consequences.
Damages everyone's economies

Okay, let's talk about Iran. I noticed in your evidence how you talked about how the sanctions were damaging to the economy and all the trouble they're going through to find natural gas somewhere else, but you never talked about the initial reason for the sanctions, which was the enrichment of Uranium. Iran is too unstable of a country set in too unstable of an environment to be trusted with Uranium. Therefore we sanction because we can't continue to fund Iran's nuclear program with our trade. The costs of the sanctions are a decrease in natural gas but if you look at what would happen if we didn't have sanctions, there is the threat of nuclear war.