BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
States where burqa is prominent violate women's rights.

There is a clear correlation between countries where the burqa is prominent and countries where the worst violations of women's rights occur. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudia Arabia, the three countries with the highest prevalence of women wearing burqas, all also have the worst records in the world of the oppression of women. This includes, with only slight variation, forbidding women to leave the home without supervision, forbidding them to drive, work, go to social gatherings, swim, etc. The burqa is intimately tied-up with these horrendous human rights and women's right violations. Attempting to justify the burqa outside of this context is intellectually irresponsible.
Face-covering not required in Islam; no religious need

Jean Francois-Cope. "Tearing away the veil." New York Times. May 4th, 2010: "French Muslim leaders have noted that the Koran does not instruct women to cover their faces, while in Tunisia and Turkey, it is forbidden in public buildings; it is even prohibited during the pilgrimage to Mecca." If there is no religious need, than there is very little freedom-of-religion justification.
Forcing removal of the burqa damages women's rights

"What's threatening about European attacks on Muslim veils." Washington Post Editorial. May 1, 2010: "Those who say they are defending women's rights have it exactly backward: They are violating fundamental rights to free expression and religious freedom. They are also exacerbating the very problem they say they are worried about. Muslims, including the devoutly religious, are in Europe to stay. Banning their customs, their clothing or their places of worship will not make them more European. It will only make Europe less free."
Majority of Canadians support Quebec burqa ban

Gurmukh Singh. "Niqab ban gets unanimous support in Canada." UMMID.com. March 28th, 2010: "Canadians have unanimously supported the niqab ban announced by French-speaking Quebec province this week. After France, the Canadian province is the first in North America to ban the niqab, a top-to-toe dress worn by Muslim women. [...] According to the survey - conducted by Angus Reid for the Montreal Gazette newspaper - 95 percent people in Quebec province supported the law to ban the Muslim dress which they say contradicts the liberal, secular values of their society. [...] Across Canada - which has 10 provinces and three national territories - four out of five people supported the ban."
Most are willing to lift burqa when necessary

"Is France right to ban wearing the burka in public? NO:" Stephanie Street on Guardian. March 21, 2010: "She took it off when she went to work because she had to, knowing she was 'going to get the reward for the time I was wearing it, making God happy by fulfilling his covenant to me.' [...] She related to me an incident that took place when she had her photo taken for her university ID. They requested she remove her niqab, so she asked for a female photographer. When the male photographer at the adjacent booth asked if she'd like the men to look away, she told them not to worry about it, not wanting to cause a scene. And when he did still turn away, she was touched: 'I thought, I just wish people could be kind like that.'"
Hijab is modest non-identity-concealing alternative to burqa

Ghada Al Atrash Janbey. "On Quebec’s Decision to Ban the Muslim Niqab." Dissident Voice. April 17th, 2010: "I would also like to make clear that I am not implying one needs to shed his/her identity in another country. In fact, when not taken to extreme measures (as is the case with the niqab), the hijab covering the hair can make a positive statement about celebrating religious beliefs or cultural traditions as is the case with an Indian wearing her flamboyant silk Sari or a Pakistani wearing her traditional Salwar Kameez."
"God's law" on burqa cannot override secular human rights

Baron Bodissey. "A Yes to a Burka Ban is a Yes to Secularization." Europe News. May 20th, 2010: "The most important question here should be: What does it matter whether it is in the Koran or is considered to be prescribed by Islamic law? Religious freedom does not mean having to tolerate things that are so inhuman or undemocratic, just because they were required 1400 years ago by the founder of a religion and his ideological disciples, and are still seen by orthodox Muslims as exemplary (sunna). In a secular, European state, universal human rights are the basis of our mindset and our laws. Blind obedience to Islamic rules is not appropriate."
Wrong to force removal of burqa to protect against forced-wearing

"Burqa, Niqab, or Bikini: Is It a Personal Choice?" Islam Online.net. Euro Muslims Editorial Desk. October 7th, 2009: "under the principles of secularism promoted in Europe, it is illogical to take away women's freedom concerning their way of dressing based on the assumption that a certain dress can hinder a woman's freedom in different walks of life. [...] outlawing the burqa merely trades one form of compulsion (you must wear this) for another (you may not wear this)."
Burqa ban based on bias of Western cultural superiority

Monty Self. "Burqa Ban Will Erode Mutual Understanding." Ethics Daily. April 7, 2010: "Banning the burqa on grounds that it is not French, that it destroys the French ideal, that it is not compatible with French culture, is just as damaging. This position fails to acknowledge the evolution of society. Cultures always evolve. The hyper-protection of the current state of a society only reveals our own assumptions of superiority. It reveals that we think ourselves better than the rest of the world. The danger here is that one day we will be surpassed and ultimately subjugated by those whom we rejected. Our current culture will cease to evolve and be left behind."
Burqa ban is not based on racism, but sound arguments

Peter Worthington. "Quebec's burqa ban is not racist." The Sudbury Star (Canada). April 2010: "A majority of Canadians likely endorse Quebec's decision (Bill 94). Some will call it racist, unfair and even unCanadian to ban face coverings for women and feel it should be a matter of individual choice. [...] While worthy of debate and discussion, what the new Quebec law is not, is racist. Rather, it is an effort to promote or enhance racial and gender equality."
Burqa protects Muslim women from lustful men

Abdallah Bin Eifan. "Ban on niqab and West’s bias." Arab News. May 17, 2010: "Islam allows women to work, seek knowledge, engage in business, testify in court, uphold the ties of kinship, visit the sick, and so on, but it has set limits in order to protect them and to prevent hooligans from harassing them."
Women should assimilate, or return to Islamist states

Ghada Al Atrash Janbey. "On Quebec’s Decision to Ban the Muslim Niqab." Dissident Voice. April 17th, 2010: "As an Arab woman raised in the West, I fully understand the importance of keeping to cultural traditions and religious beliefs, but I have also learned the importance of assimilation. It is understandable that immigrants seek to preserve the old, but they must also embrace the new. And if the new happens to conflict with their own beliefs, then they might as well remain in their original homelands where they might feel a better sense of belonging and acceptance."
Interacting with veiled women is not hard

Steve Chapman. "A free society requires mutual tolerance." Chicago Tribune. May 23, 2010: "It may be difficult to interact with someone whose face you can't see. But lots of things that are difficult when unfamiliar soon become tolerable or irrelevant even. [...] When I first met someone I knew was gay, many years ago, I was very ill at ease. The first time I conversed with someone wearing a safety pin through her eyebrow, likewise. In both cases, I got over it. I suspect that if they had no choice, the anti-burqa crowd would adapt as well."
Even if burqa is oppressive symbol, women have right to wear it

"Don't ban the burka." National Post Editorial (Canada). January 9, 2010: "We share this abhorrence for such clothing: The burka signifies the notion that a woman is a piece of male property, which must be packaged and caged. [...] Still, banning burkas is not the right way to battle the sexist ideas that burkas symbolize. In our society, women have a right to wear what they want, assuming they choose to do so of their own free will."
Marijuana has many CONFIRMED medicinal uses.

It was widely used to treat glaucoma, give relief to chemotherapy recipients, and also as a TREATMENT for many psychological disorders (such as social anxiety disorder and anxiety disorder). Additionally, there is no contention, in any medical circle, that marijuana is an effective stress reliever, causing it to have IMMEASURABLE beneficial effects in the treatment of stress-related physical and psychological disorders... yet many state governments have banned even the medical use of marijuana solely because it potentially makes it more available to elicit users. There are several studies that not only discount marijuana as a cause of schizophrenia, but further suggest that it has sometimes profound beneficial effects on patients with A.D.D., Borderline Personality Disorder and (yes) schizophrenia.
Marijuana's social costs should not be arbitrarily discriminated against.

Marijuana may indeed have indirect social costs, such as increased healthcare costs, increased risks on the road, and others. But, illegalizing marijuana on this basis risks being seen as arbitrary discrimination against marijuana. Wouldn't you also have to illegalize alcohol, tobacco, and fast food on a similar basis. Certainly, the social costs and risks of these substances can be argued as equivalent to the risks of marijuana consumption. Illegalizing marijuana on the basis of its social costs, therefore, opens the law to accusations of being arbitrary, discriminatory, and of double standards. This is not good for the law and the integrity of the social contract.
Marijuana has been used in religious rites and rituals for thousands of years.

If venomous snakes in religious rites and rituals (often used on congregational children) cannot be banned in this country (which the Supreme Court decided is constitutionally protected), then what right does the government have to prohibit the use of an obviously less deadly practice such as the consumption of marijuana? It is for every person ALONE to decide what is spiritually beneficial to them. Our FIRST amendment guarantees it.
Marijuana is only unhealthy or risky when abused.

The problem with illegalizing marijuana is that it lumps the most moderate of uses of marijuana in with the worst of abuses. Just like with alcohol, there are scales of use that fall within responsible to irresponsible to abusive categories. The responsible use of marijuana might involve the recreational use of the drug a couple of times a year and in very small doses, such as, a single toke. Does it make sense for such innocuous levels of consumption to be illegal? No. And, yet, in states where marijuana is illegal, such levels of consumption are illegal. Instead of this system, marijuana should be legally regulated like alcohol on the basis of abuse in circumstances where it has the potential to threaten other citizens, such as before driving or operating machinery.
Marijuana is worse for individuals and society than alcohol.

Both alcohol and marijuana impair judgement. But alcohol has lasting damage on the body and causes death when over consumed.Yet, the distinguishing feature of marijuana is that it has greater long-term effects on memory, cognition, and motivations. Marijuana is more the drug of "losers in life" than alcohol. If one primary objective in society is to produce as many succesfull winners, alcohol is less costly to this objective than marijuana. Also, much less is known about he health effects of marijuana than of alcohol; making caution toward legalizing marijuana more appropriate. It is, therefore, fitting that marijuana be illegal while alcohol be legal.
Contradictory arguments by opposition.

We cannot, in the same breath, say that crime will rise if marijuana is legalized because users will commit more crimes to obtain it, yet maintain that prohibition and harsher penalties are now keeping usage down. If it is maintained that marijuana users will commit VIOLENT offenses (such as burglary or armed robbery) to obtain the substance, how can the position be maintained that current prohibitory legislation (which is NOT a violent offense) be the effective threat of penalty?
Government research discounts relationship b/w illegality and usage.

Lloyd Johnston, Ph.D. is a leading federally funded researcher on the subject of marijuana usage rates, yet admits that there have never, to his knowledge, been another study that compared marijuana usage rates in the decriminalized states to rates in the other states in the U.S. other that the one in which researchers concluded that "decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people in this age group." In fact, the use of marijuana in adolescents has skyrocketed AFTER prohibition. Studies further show that increased penelties for usage have had NO effect on trends in adolescent marijuana use rates either.
Use of Marijuana (illegally) is a choice.

Many people seem to be under the impression that the use of illegal drugs is something that may be forced on someone. However, unless coerced by force, this is normally not the case. Because laws are a part of our everyday lives, we are taught what things are legal and illegal by law, through life experience. By definition, illegal drugs are not legal to use. Since marijuana is illegal, then use, cultivation, sale and distribution is illegal as well. One doesn't have to be aware of the moral or health related issues that go along with something to know that it's illegal. Therefore, if someone wishes to commit an illegal act, then the punishment for getting caught is the punishment of the illegal act violating the law.
Marijuana is worse for individuals and society than tobacco.

Both cigarettes and marijuana do damage to the lungs. But, marijuana smoke is much more potent, and can do much more damage.Italic textfreedom of choice, I think its the smokers choice weather to hurt their body the government might as well control what we eat, being overweight can cause way more probelms. tobacco is not only addicting but has a lot of additives.Marijuana on the other hand IS NOT.Marijuana use reduces hormone levels and sperm count unlike cigarettes.Freedom of Choice. And, marijuana impairs judgement, does long term damage to the mind, and can cause psychosisNot a proven statement - just a theory, therefor It is not a fact, It Causes SHORT TERM memory loss. NOT long term.. Cigarettes have none of these mental costs.Addiction, a BIG mental cost. In addition, the health effects of tobacco are much better documented than those of marijuana. Therefore, it is appropriate that cigarettes be legal while marijuana be illegal.
Inequality of comparison.

Legalization in some countries has led to marginal crime increases in those countries (and some other countries in crime reduction), yet we are the United States of America, where we grow up believing we have the right to be free from the oppressions of unreasonable governmental action. In this respect we differ from those other countries at the most basic level, therefore rendering comparison inaccurate. Nearly all marijuana users believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional (correct assumption or not) and unreasonable, therefore the use of marijuana in the U.S.A. is not effected by prohibitory laws because the vast majority of users already see such laws as an infringement of their God-given rights. This is not just another unpopular law in a country which isn't guaranteed freedom and liberty. Marijuana prohibition is more widely perceived by users in the U.S. as an affront to all that this country stands for. When an oppression is perceived in THIS country, we tend to defend it with more vehemence than most; simple defiance becomes necessary patriotism. In short, users believe their actions to be more patriotic than unlawful. If the perceived threat to our freedoms is removed (i.e. that is replace prohibition with taxation and regulation) then the otherwise law-abiding citizens that are users can no longer use self-perceived patriotism as an excuse for being unlawful and will tend to resume their otherwise lawful lives (as was seen when alcohol prohibition ended).
Legal marijuana can be taxed for revenue gain

According to a study conducted by Harvard Professor Dr. Jeffrey Miron, replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation similar to that integrated on alcoholic and tobacco products would result in annual savings and revenues of between $10 and $14 billion per year. Leading the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University. Akerlof, Friedman, and Smith along with over 500 other economists are supporting Dr. Jeffrey Miron's study and are calling for a debate assessing the logic and rationale behind marijuana prohibition. Dr. Jeffrey Miron's study concludes that removing the prohibitive status on marijuana and replacing it with legal regulation would result in approximately saving $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement; $2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at state and local levels.
Judgement and common sense cannot be legislated.

No matter what research you read of who's stories you listen to, the fact remains that the bad or good aspects of marijuana use are above all else subjective, and in essence an oppinion. It is simply a judgement call. Each side has it's oppinion on the benefits and/or negative ramifications of marijuana use. With marijuana use there are the same pitfalls as any other life activity... bad judgement yeilds bad results... but our ability to choose for ourselves MUST be preserved. There are MUCH more severe social ramifications from a government that is allowed to illegalize ANYTHING solely on the basis of maybes. They cannot illegalize fast food even though it is WIDELY accepted that it is bad for you. They cannot illegalize swimming because you MAY be attacked by a shark. They may not illegalize ANYTHING on the notion that it MAY cause harm. If that were allowed, then any opinion may be made law.
There is little evidence that Marijuana is a gateway drug

If marijuana was a gateway drug, you would expect to see high numbers of marijuana consumers also being, for instance, cocaine users. But, this correlation does not really exist. In America, for every roughly one hundred marijuana user, there is only one cocaine user. In addition, it is nearly impossible to establish a direct causal link between an individual's marijuana consumption and their subsequent "hard" drug consumption. It is completely possible, for instance, that individuals who choose to partake in marijuana consumption are inherently more risk-taking. Therefore, their choice to try cocaine could be completely causally dissociated from their initial consumption of marijuana.
Marijuana may be a "gateway drug" because it's in the drug blackmarket

Marijuana is often criticized as being a gateway drug to harder drugs, and this is used as a justification for its illegality. Irrespective of a lack of evidence in this regard, there is reason to believe that marijuana's illegality itself could be the cause of Marijuana being a gateway drug. The illegality of marijuana causes its sale, purchase, and consumption to occur in the blackmarket, where the sale, purchase, and consumption of all other hard drugs occur. This means that marijuana's blackmarket existence causes consumers of it to be exposed to a network of other, harder blackmarket drugs, which subsequently increases the likelihood that these consumers will be swayed to try harder drugs. If marijuana was legalized, the sale, purchase, and consumption of marijuana would not take place within these blackmarket, and therefore the link to harder drugs would be broken.
Some are "pressured" into marijuana consumption without a "choice".

The notion that individuals should be free to make the choice to consume marijuana is predicated on the notion that they are fully informed of the costs and are in a position of detached judgement. The problem with this assumption is that many individuals grow up in, for instance, ghettos where marijuana is widespread, social pressure to consume is high, and few information is available regarding the costs. In addition, an individual may be illiterate or lack sufficient recourse to uncovering the costs. Is it fair to that individual to expect that they can make a sound judgement? No. The guidance of marijuana's "illegal" status is an important barrier and red flag to such individuals.
Marijuana is a gateway drug

Marijuana is considered a "soft" drug, as compared with "harder" drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and crystal meth. This is because it is less addictive and generally considered less harmful than these other drugs. But, the problem is that, as a "soft" drug, marijuana acts as a stepping stone or "gateway" to "harder" drugs. Having tried marijuana and having been indoctrinated into the world of "mind-altering" drugs, people are much more likely to then try harder drugs. The illegality of marijuana creates a barrier before this "gateway".
Marijuana is no more harmful than tobacco and alcohol

Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drunk driving etc.). The legalization of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law whereby substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis remains unlawful.
Users simply smoke less of potent pot to achieve the same high

There is nothing sinister or dangerous about potent pot. Assuming that people will smoke until they are as high as they want to be, and then will stop, smokers of potent pot may simply have to take only one hit to get as high as they want, as opposed to a full joint with less potent pot. It is similar to the consumption of spirits as compared to beer. And, if adults are trusted to consume spirits responsibly, why not potent pot?
Marijuana's harm to individuals spill over onto communities and society

To argue that individual consumption of marijuana entails only individual consequences is to argue that individuals exist in something of a vacuum. The reality is that citizens within society are highly interconnected and interdependent. If marijuana use leads to the degradation of an individual in various ways, this creates stresses on other individuals who depend on that individual. For example, an individual may be unable to function properly in their job due to their marijuana use, and this may damage the business they are involved with. This damage, in extreme circumstances, could lead to layoffs of other workers or possibly even the disintegration of a business. Another frequent example is the degradation of a family due to marijuana use, and the subsequent degradation of a church and community. To significant degrees, these social damages can be seen as violations of the liberties of other individuals to the extent that liberties can be defined as the opportunity for individuals to seek fulfillment and happiness.