BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pre-nuptial agreements undermine marriage as a relationship of equals: much of the meaning associate...

Pre-nuptial agreements allow people to feel secure when they enter marriage: the person with the higher level of assets can benefit from the feeling of assurance that the other is not marrying for money. They also benefit from the assurance that their assets have a measure of protection in case the marriage does not work. This is particularly important where assets include inherited property which has sentimental value or a family business which would have to be sold if the assets were to be divided equally. The party with fewer assets can also benefit from a prenuptial agreement because it spells out in advance what their financial settlement will include and offers them some assurance that they will be cared for if the marriage ends. Spouses who feel secure are more likely to have equal and happy relationships than those who remain suspicious of the other’s intentions. Moreover, banning pre-nuptial agreements may encourage couples to not marry in the first place, leaving the poorer half of the partnership even less protected than they would be with a pre-nup, and thus making the policy counter-productive.
Pre-nuptial agreements are not fair for either party: couples who decide how their assets should be ...

Pre-nuptial agreements are actually fairer for both parties: the individuals within a couple have access to greater information about their own needs and preferences and can better decide what is fair for themselves than the state. If, for example, one spouse is likely to inherit property from their parents, both parties may agree that it would be unfair for this to be divided equally. Most pre-nuptial agreements take into account the possibility of changing circumstances, such as the existence of children; spouses can amend the agreement as their marriage develops, should they so wish. In addition, divorce is often a long and emotional process during which spouses may feel considerable resentment towards each other. This anguish often results in lengthy conflict over the division of assets which may result in an outcome which is not necessarily fair: one spouse may relinquish some of his or her property in order to escape the conflict. It is better for the couple to reach an agreement when they still love each other and so are more likely to treat each other reasonably.
It is justified for the state to intervene in this context: married couples have entered into a stat...

Banning pre-nuptial agreements is illegitimate state activity: the state should remain neutral between all its citizens’ claims, and that responsibility requires it to endorse all contracts made between all people (subject to the absence of duress, misinformation, etc.). The argument that the state predates contracts and so can choose which ones to uphold is not persuasive. We would not think it legitimate if the state refused to endorse perfectly fair contracts between citizens because of their race or gender.
Pre-nuptial agreements pose a serious risk of abuse: where one spouse is considerably richer there i...

The risk of abuse can be minimised by requiring independent legal advice for both parties: if both parties have access to adequate advice regarding their own interests such risks can be overstated. The fact that a pre-nuptial agreement may not be as generous to one spouse as a court order does not mean that the spouse cannot validly consent to it or that it harms their interests. Spouses may feel that the minimisation of anguish during a divorce is sufficiently important to justify a smaller share of the assets. Moreover, we all make decisions that may not be in our best interests. My decision to go debating regularly may harm my degree. A decision to have unprotected sexual intercourse may result in undesired pregnancy. In order to have control over our own lives we have to make decisions for ourselves and the consequence of this may mean that our best interests are not always served.
It will increase the tension and the gap between rich and poor.

By increasing the tuition fees the government will not only discourage the less well-off from attending higher education but it will create a wider gap between the rich and poor. People who were in disadvantaged backgrounds to begin with are less likely to be able to afford to go to university if an increase in tuition fees was enforced. This would then result in them being unable to obtain decent jobs with high salaries, leading to a resentful feeling and tension amongst the poorer of the nation and towards the rich who had never had any problem attending university and getting a well-paid career. Yes but its so much easier to pay off those debts if Daddy is a millionaire and you have a trust fund. As well although it only gets paid off depending on your wage it still has to be fully paid back so it becomes how long you are in debt for.
It will discourage people from getting a higher education.

If the government were to increase tuition fees they may well find that they have left themselves in a bit of a hole. Considering the government needs bright and intellectual people to fill the gaps within the various systems of the country (e.g. health system, legal system, administrative system, banking system etc...) by discouraging people to get a higher education it will find itself left with few people to fill in these gaps. What's more, even if the government did have people to take up these positions, it is likely that they would not be the best people for the job. If more people were able to get a higher education, it would leave the government with more choice and more intellectual candidates to choose from. Aside from the government, discouraging people to get a higher education through increasing tuition fees would have an effect on the whole country as people will not be as trained or qualified to do their jobs as they would have been if they had obtained a degree.
It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given.

Whilst it cannot be disputed that most universities guarantee an outstanding education, it would definitely not be worth £20,000 per year! That amount of money could considerably add to an "average" salary making it worth the same as a "high" salary but without obtaining a degree and wasting 3/4 years of your life! Furthermore, although the quality of education may be worth paying for, the quantity of education does not justify such an increase. Many students are given less than 15 hours of lectures per week so should they really be paying such a huge amount for an education that they rarely receive?
A degree will become more valuable.

How much a degree is worth is proportional to how prestigious the institution is and how well-known the course is. A rise in tuition fees will only lead to the poor being forfeited the chance to enrol in a degree course and hence, resulting in only the better off people obtaining degrees. A degree, in this sense, has lost its purpose and worth as it is just a luxury good that can only be afforded by the affluent. One might argue that financial aid is available for the poor who perform well academically, but then again, with the rising costs of tuition fees, will there be more grants and scholarships handed out? I highly doubt so.
Discrimination against the poor.

Due to the fact that the newly increased tuition fees would apply to everyone within the country, whether they are rich or poor, ensures equality. If the government was to reduce the fees for the poor or increase the fees for the rich only, that would be discrimination. Therefore, the government is not discriminating but ensuring equality and doing what it feels is best for the country. Besides which, all students can get a "tuition fee loan" and so even the poorest can easily afford to go to university.
It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given.

The amenities and tools that universities offer their students to gain higher education, including the excellent standard of university professors, are priceless. Consequently, an increase in tuition fees would definitely still be worth attending university for as there is no other institution that can give such high quality facilities, teaching, help and advice in addition to a highly regarded qualification (a degree). Such a qualification as a degree could potentially allow for huge salaries and pay packages in the long-run, making the tuitions fees paid to the university which had made all that possible, seem insignificant.
A degree will become more valuable.

A rise in tuition fees making higher education itself more valuable, combined with the reduced number of students that will attend university owing to the increase, will make a degree a more valuable and sought-after qualification. At the moment more and more people seem to be heading off to university and if this keeps up, before long a degree will be worth practically nothing since the majority of the country will have one. Perhaps an increase in tuition fees is needed to prevent this concern and to ensure that a degree keeps its value.
Discrimination against the poor.

A further rise in tuition fees could easily be seen as an indirect way of discriminating against the poorer people of the country. If the government was to increase tuition fees it would have the obvious effect of deterring less well-off people from attending higher education. This could in fact have been the government's aim from the outset and consequently, it constitutes discrimination against the poor and in favour of the richer people of the nation who can afford the newly increased rates. Counter argument: Discrimination is not only one rule for one but another for the rest it also includes diverse access for example if I was to say one of you can go to university whoever reaches the top of the stairs first is in and one of the competitors is in a wheel chair that is obvious discrimination. < wierd example but first thing I thought of. The Debts could be crippling to a working class family but not to a wealthy family as they have extra money to help out their child.
Tuition fees were only increased a few years ago.

It was only 3 years ago that tuition fees were increased from a mere £1,000 to a substantial £3,000. In fact, before 1997 there were no such things as tuition fees for universities - higher education was free! Whilst the introduction of tuition fees can be seen as a good thing since it prevented overcrowding universities, a rise in tuition fees by £2,000 was a bit over the top. And now, to want to increase tuitions fees by more thousands of pounds is absurd, not to mention unfair! Students have had their fair share of increases in the last few years, now it's someone else's turn!
More money will pumped into the economy, helping to overcome the recession.

Is the government really that desperate for funds to help restructure its economy that it is willing to practically steal from students? Desperate times call for desperate measures, but depriving students of all people of a significant amount of money is wrong and most definitely not the best solution to an economic recovery. A few million pounds increase in fees given to the government will not make a substantial difference to the situation. There are numerous other, more effective and more moral ways to get money and to fight the recession.
Reduction in competition for careers.

Competition should be encouraged so as to allow employers to gain the best possible post-graduate students for the job. What's more, with all these "anti-competitive issues" arising within the UK at the minute (for instance, the issue with BAA owning all three London airports as well as the frowned upon possible mergers between TV channels) could this not be seen as being anti-competitive? It is not student fees which need to be raised but rather the universities standards. This in the end will provide the people with the best qualifications the best jobs.
It will increase the tension and the gap between rich and poor.

Both rich and poor families do not have to pay tuition fees directly, they are paid using a "tuition fee loan". This would merely make the loan larger. This does not in any way affect whether any student is able to "afford" to go to university, only the length of time it takes to pay off the loan after graduating, and starting to earn over £15K per year. Additionally, the money is paid back based on salary of the graduate, not the size of the loan. Once the student has graduated, their background has no relevance to their current financial situation, they can get just as good a job as those with a more well off background.
It will discourage people from getting a higher education.

The selection process for jobs would be made a lot easier if there were fewer candidates to choose from. It would also make things easier and decrease the competition for the fewer candidates that were qualified for the job. Furthermore, a higher education is not required for many jobs and careers and so it unlikely that by discouraging people from getting a higher education it will have a significant impact on the country. There is no evidence to back up this claim. Since tuition fees were introduced the number of applicants has gone up on average, despite the fees increasing yearly. There are reasons for wanting to go to university other than to earn more money, for example access to more interesting, specialised jobs and for the university experience.
More money will pumped into the economy, helping to overcome the recession.

Through charging students more for their studies, the government will gain more money for themselves which as a result, they could use to inject into the economy at a time when, let's face it, the economy is in desperate need of a boost. As a long-term consequence of an increase in tuition fees this could be a solution to getting the country out of one of the worst recessions in a century and to keep it out of re-entering such a state.
Reduction in competition for careers.

Through a rise in tuition fees, many people will be put off going to university and getting a higher education. This will, nevertheless, have a positive impact on the smaller number of people who do decide to go to university and to obtain a degree. Many careers these days are extremely competitive (for example careers in medicine and law) and even after achieving a high degree in a certain subject, it can prove extremely difficult to secure a career within that profession. By increasing tuition fees, the smaller number of students are more likely to be able to get their desired career because there will be less competition for the places.
Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing d...

Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all.
People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to g...

People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. By targeting people’s unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices.
Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they ...

Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low-self esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm.
Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything t...

Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole.
Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about ma...

Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. The adverts just try to make children eat as much food as possible without any concern for the health costs.
The levels of advertising are just too much these days. You cannot walk down the street, ride on a ...

No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them.
Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing d...

Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available.
People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to g...

Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.
Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they ...

The media and celebrity magazines do much more harm, by mocking unattractive or overweight people, and glorifying models who are often dangerously thin. Adverts never criticise people - that would be terrible for the companies behind them. Their aim is to understand and provide what people want, and so their adverts only ever reflect what people think. If people's perceptions are wrong, then it not the advertisers' job to put them right, but politicians, the media and schools.
Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything t...

Our society is build around the idea that companies produce things that people want, and this is what makes us prosperous. If consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products then what happens to the people whose job it is to make them? The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some people take materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and then a little extra when they treat themselves. This is a much better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy the things they need - that would be a step backwards.
Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about ma...

Adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control.
Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better pro...

If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.
Rebuttal 5: The danger of putting the liberal cart before the homophobic horse

In response to our final substantive argument - " [Same-sex marriage] creates a social backlash that damages substantive equality for homosexuals" - proposition points out, firstly, that many homophobic acts are not related to same-sex marriage. In many cases this will, indeed, be the case - after all, hate crimes preceded same-sex marriage in South Africa. We concede that observation. But the real points are these: 1) same-sex marriage has not resulted in a decrease in homophobic incidents, pace the predictions of Team USA in their first round argument; indeed, 2) same-sex marriage has led to stronger lobbying against gay persons' rights in South Africa by groups that have become organised *in response to* same-sex marriage being legalised [[http://www.sacla.za.net/?component=ddb&operation=page&page=24]]. It is this latter reality that constitutes the social backlash. Tellingly, proposition concedes this point (!!) when they state - correctly - that " The South African government was clearly aware that there was "overwhelming opposition to this bill from people throughout South Africa"[1] when they legalized same-sex marriage. It affords same-sex couple legal stature and recognition in a very homophobic atmosphere. " We deduce from this quote that Team USA regards the South African government as having been hasty to put the liberal cart before the homophobic horse. They should not - we assume prop to be saying here - ignore what most people think. It is refreshing that majoritary views' place in policy design finally gain relevance from Team USA. Thanks for that! It - the SA government - would have done gay persons a much greater favour by focusing on more substantive gains (like educating persons on the ground about the illegality and wrongness of attacking gay persons) before setting out to design marriage policies that do not speak to the immediate, substantive needs of the gay community. Once again, as Team USA's own response to the SA case studies confirms, it is clear that law as an instrument of social change is unreliable. Opposition's analysis on social backlash, remains.