BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Victim culture

Religions are immense catch all groups with huge followings. What is offensive to one member of a religion may not be to another. This makes it very difficult to work out what should count as causing offence. However if it is not explicitly defined then the law is being left open to abuse by a victim culture. Where the law becomes the number one recourse to almost any insult no matter how small. This would be come similar to a litigation culture: always sue as you may win something out of it. This if anything then means there is an encouragement to see things as being an offence against your religion. Not only would the breadth of what can be considered a religious offence slowly expand but at the same time others from other groups would have to be increasingly cautious about engaging in critical discussion for worry that they will be taken to a civil court for anything mildly offensive. This action need not be widespread but even a few individuals would be enough to set precedence.
It is not necessary

Having a civil offence for causing religious offence is not necessary. In Britain there is already the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, this made it a criminal offence to incite hatred against someone due to their religious or racial background.[[ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents%5D%5D Other European countries have similar legislation.[[“Do not criminalize critical remarks against religions”, Council of Europe Commissioner of Human Rights, 11/6/07, http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/070611_en.asp%5D%5D Religions already have the protection of the law against people causing religious offence meaning that there does not need to be a civil offence as well. If there was a civil offence it would have to go further than the current legislation in order to have any meaning as most of the time victims will not launch a civil case when they can have a criminal one instead. This means the punishable offence would be less than that in the criminal law so again running up against freedom of speech and expression that at the time of the debates on the Racial and Religious Hatred Act had many worried that there would be no ability to satirise religion.[[Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, Guardian.co.uk, 19/1/09, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2008/dec/16/racial-religious-hatred-act%5D%5D
Jordanian journalists protest a 48% increase in U.S funding after a negative report by human rights' watch on the Jordanian govt

A common excuse for governments to act up is: Not enough funding;too much pressure and so we take it out on our people; colloquially put. The U.S has always been monetarily kind to Israel; it would be hypocritical not to be nice to other countries with horrible human rights`records. The U.S itself has a deplorable human rights' record; so what of that? Different States have the freedom to define human rights(the rights of citizens,travelers and immigrants) as they please.Some states consider gay marriage to be a human right; other states do not. Also the U.S's human rights' violations in other countries are infamous. here's a list of human rights' treaties not ratified by the U.S: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Other_human_rights_treaties_not_signed_or_signed_but_not_ratified]]
Jordanian journalists protest a 48% increase in U.S funding after a negative report by human rights' watch on the Jordanian govt

It is odd, but not quite. Jordon sells oil to the U.S; the U.S buys oil from Jordan: both governments are mutually-happy. These journalists don't seem to be patriotic; shouldn't they be happy that their country received unconditional funding? But they don't trust the government and why should they? Are they upset that their govt was rewarded not punished? ¸-http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/01/29/jordan-aid-should-be-tied-human-rights
Tying aid to human rights puts pressure on countries to act responsibly

towards their citizens. If leaders are aware that the amount of AID they receive is conditioned upon how they value and practice human rights, then they automatically put human rights first(as should be). When U.S.AID is distributed unfairly; some uncivilized governments are off the hook while others are punished harshly; it gives out a negative impression of foreign policy. The United States is then putting money&power/economy first and human rights second. Counter: conditional funding does not translate to economic-sanctions/no-funding. It means money should be given to these governments once they ensure that they spend it on providing/practicing human rights and not in any other sector.
Government and citizens are often not the same entity.

The government in low -income countries is sometimes not interested in its country. We must remember that aid is supposedly to help the countrymen, NOT the government. If the people are already suffering from bad human rights, how is it helpful to stifle what is sometimes their only hope, in terms of the basic needs? I agree that Western governments should assess whether the recipient country's government deserve the aid, but only to consider whether they would spend the aid wisely. It is not fair to punish the countrymen as a result of bad governance which is not their fault.
Hypothetically and on paper it should be

The U.S has put sanctions on a number of countries on the basis of human rights`violations. But putting sanctions on countries is dependent-on/allied/aligned-with in one or the other is difficult/different. Because imposing sanctions on these countries is also punishing the U.S(of A not I,that`s a different country) and her people. Why should Americans(civilians and businessmen) suffer when foreign countries are violating human rights? As long as they`re paying up(in oil/arms/toys) and not violating American rights it`s all good. The American government cares for the American people; the American people benefit from friendly relations with Israel,OPEC-countries et al. There are countless Americans employed all over the middle-east making ten times the money they would in the U.S. Blocking their jobs and businesses in the name of trade sanctions is not desirable/feasible.
Creates a culture of doing enough to pass exams that actually aquiring knowledge

As there are so many exams nowadays, students are becoming very good at gaining enough knowledge to pass exams, but are not actually retaining the knowledge. 48% of students under 24 have admitted to using cramming techniques to get through exams [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8059860.stm]] and that a has suggested that 40% [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8059860.stm]] of successful British students would fail the same exam a year later as they would not have retained enough knowledge.
Long sessions of cramming are totally inefficient

It is much more efficient to do a small amount of revision over a larger period of time than it is to cram it all into one or two days of full on intensive study. George Turnbull, an exam doctor for ofqual (the office of the qualifications and examinations regulator) states that "students who plan long four-hour study slogs to soak up knowledge are only fooling themselves. Such marathon efforts result in 'only 10 minutes' actual work being done". He suggests that it is better for students to "Start with the 10 minutes you know you will do. Then have a 10-minute break and start again." [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8059860.stm]] and that over a period of five days the amount of time worked in between breaks will increase.
Danger of burnout

As discovered through experience, cramming for exams is a stressful experience, and is one of the few times when time flys when you are certainly not having fun. People stay up late and work incredibly long hours over a fairly short period of time, which means that by the time a student gets to the exam, they are so tired that the extra information that may have been gained through cramming becomes worthless. One can only hold so much at 1 time that the more you try and "stuff" you brain with all this knowledge, the harder it gets. Say your brain is a cup. The knowledge is water. Take your 2L Jug of water and try and put it in a cup. Will the cup hold the 2L of water? Of course not, it'll overflow. Think of a machine. Your brain is a machine. If the machine works too long, it will overheat. The parts will burn and It will no longer be functional, or it won't function as good.
Generic drugs would be far cheaper to produce, and without the shipping costs from factories in Euro...

Generic drugs would be far cheaper to produce, and without the shipping costs from factories in Europe. The generic drugs would also have no research and development costs to create, so they could be sold for a far reduced price from what the drug companies are charging. The average cost for keeping a person on a course of AZT and other drug cocktails whilst they have HIV is exorbitant, a cost which would be hugely reduced through the use of generic substitutes.
The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws ...

The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws of the market should tell you that the reduced profit for drugs like AZT and Nevirapine will be recouped from the fact that the drugs will suddenly become affordable to a market of millions of sufferers, many of whom will be using products like AZT for the duration of the disease, so it would not be a case of the companies losing money in making the drugs cheaper after all.
By buying the medicines now, especially for preventative purposes, the developing nations can succee...

By buying the medicines now, especially for preventative purposes, the developing nations can succeed in reducing their HIV positive population and thus not have to worry about buying the next generation of (inevitably more expensive) drugs. They are as cheap as they can go at the moment, so instead of threatening and insisting on cheaper prices, the developing nations should invest now, so that they do not need to buy more expensive drugs in bigger quantities for the larger amounts of sufferers they will otherwise have to deal with later.
The countries with the biggest AIDS problems are held as a captive market and are forced essentially...

Drug companies are by no means omnipotent, they are as much subject to the forces of the free market as any other business. If anything, the nations in Southern Africa have the largest market for the drugs in the world, so the drug companies would not be supplying the drugs at the current price, if people were not buying them. The threat of generic drugs only further serves to discourage drug companies from creating new and more effective medicines, as the developing nations have shown them that their patent rights will not be respected.
Generic drugs would be far cheaper to produce, and without the shipping costs from factories in Euro...

Because most of the drug companies are based in richer, first world nations, they have both the technology to produce effective medicines, and the funding to ensure that no corners are cut in the process. The poorer nations would almost certainly cut certain chemical corners in their manufacture of generic drugs, should the technology for their large-scale manufacture even be available. In addition, by contravening international intellectual property rights treaties, they would be alienating themselves from the rest of the world and will not benefit from the next generation of AIDS drugs, as companies will be reluctant to supply a country that will just steal the drug formula and make cheap generic substitutes.
The suffering of millions of people is ongoing, for as long as the drug companies refuse to make AID...

Is it right that third world sufferers should get huge discounts, whilst first world sufferers pay the full price? First world nations may even have to pay more, if the drug companies decide to subsidise their “charity sales” by charging the developed countries more. Are the poorer countries not using the sufferers as hostages themselves? Many of the developing nations would in fact make huge long term savings by buying and using preventive medicines to stop mother to child transmission, etc.
The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws ...

Even at the bare minimum price at which the drug companies would break even, the majority of the third world would be unable to afford the drugs. One-off treatments to prevent mother to child transmission and for rape victims, etc. would be expensive enough. The cost prices for complex drug cocktails would still be exorbitant, and way out of the budget of the developing nations, so no matter how much the drug companies sell, they would still be making a loss.
By buying the medicines now, especially for preventative purposes, the developing nations can succee...

No matter how low they drug companies can sell their product, it is unlikely to ever be cheap enough, as the number of HIV infected people in Africa grows, the strain on the national health spending of governments will become unbearable. These countries are better off pursuing preventative measures and education with the money they have to spend for health. Because of this, they will need to save money in other areas of healthcare, and the greatest savings can still be made by producing cheap, generic medicines.
The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers from consuming alcohol, instead ...

The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers from consuming alcohol, instead it makes underage drinking cool and so makes teenagers more likely to do it. In Italy, Spain and France the limit is lower, and a culture of having wine at the table from a young age encourages a responsible approach where alcohol is not consumed for its own sake or to excess. With higher alcohol age limits, young people in the UK and US find it harder to get alcohol and so binge-drink when they do. This is not only harmful to them but creates a damaging attitude towards alcohol which continues into their later lives.
As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are old enough to want to socialise on...

As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are old enough to want to socialise on an evening, they are forced to do it secretly on streets and in parks. This often creates a nuisance to the wider public. It also makes it more likely that younger children will be exposed to alcohol and is often one of the causes of teenage crime, vandalism and violence.
Fundamentally this is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally we accept that at sixteen an indiv...

Fundamentally this is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally we accept that at sixteen an individual is old enough to make rational choices about a whole host of things, from having sex to fighting for their country. We also allow sixteen year olds to harm themselves, if they choose to, by smoking and gambling. If sixteen year olds are thought rational enough to make those choices, there is no reason to deny them the right to choose whether to drink alcohol or not.
Studies show that most people have consumed alcohol in the UK before they reach their 18th birthday,...

Studies show that most people have consumed alcohol in the UK before they reach their 18th birthday, so clearly the law does not work. There is further evidence from the US which suggests increasing the alcohol age limit has no real impact on college students’ alcohol intake. A study at Arizona State University in the late 1980s during the time Arizona increased its minimum age from 19 to 21 showed that only 6% of students reduced their alcohol intake. Perhaps more worryingly 22% of students reported that they intended to take more soft drugs as they would be easier to hide in a college dorm than bottles of alcohol. When laws are ignored it undermines the wider legal system in the eyes of the public. The legal system should reflect the reality of drinking patterns and have a lower minimum age.
While adverts for alcopops and beer may make underage drinking seem more attractive, they are not th...

While adverts for alcopops and beer may make underage drinking seem more attractive, they are not the cause of underage drinking. The European Council in a 1989 directive placed strict limits on how alcohol could be advertised - for instance adverts cannot claim that alcohol leads to sexual success and they cannot criticise non-drinkers. Yet advertising companies were still able to glamorise alcopops in the 1990s. In fact even with a complete ban on tobacco advertising, over 10% of under-16s in the UK still smoke regularly and that figure has hardly fallen since the ban came into place. Drinking alcohol is attractive to young people for much wider reasons than advertising, and the only effective way to regulate it is to reduce the age limit.
The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers from consuming alcohol, instead ...

Teenagers will always rebel against whatever limits are put on their behaviour. If they are allowed alcohol at 16 instead of 18, some other activity such as soft drug use will quickly replace it in the cool stakes. The myth of a mature continental drinking culture may hold true for a small middle class community, but is not representative of most peoples’ experience. For instance the Spanish government is looking to crack down on massive outdoor drinking parties in major cities organised by teenagers. There is also no reason to think that British adults, many of whom have just as excessive an approach to alcohol consumption as teenagers, will suddenly become better role models if the law is changed to fit this continental image.
Studies have shown that limited alcohol consumption (a couple of glasses of red wine per week) can a...

There are clear harms to young people from drinking too much, made worse by the fact that they have growing bodies. Research published in the Journal of Substance Abuse in 1997 showed that young people in the US who drink before the age of 15 are four times more likely to become alcoholics than those who begin drinking at 21. This is partly because they become socialised into a heavy drinking culture at an impressionable age, and partly because of the state of their physical development. There is also evidence from the US Center for Disease Control that underage drinkers have higher suicide and homicide rates. When drunk, young people may do things which cause longer term problems, such as having unprotected sex. UK studies show that a third of those who lose their virginity before the age of 15 do so under the influence of alcohol. We should protect young people from these harms by maintaining a high age limit.
As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are old enough to want to socialise on...

Even if the drinking age was lowered, there would still be a division in the marketplace because most twenty-somethings do not want to drink or socialise with sixteen year olds. Even with an age limit of 18, chains such as All Bar One have age limits of 21. This suggests that for teenagers at the bottom of the legal age bracket, there might only be a limited number of places they might be allowed to drink in. It is also worth noting that many teenagers buy alcohol cheaply in a supermarket and then drink it in a park because it is less expensive than going to a pub or bar. This would not change with a lower age limit.
Fundamentally this is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally we accept that at sixteen an indiv...

We do not allow sixteen year olds to do several key things, like vote or drive so clearly there is no set line of where adulthood begins. Drinking is also a larger choice than smoking, because alcohol reduces your ability to make further choices rationally by intoxicating you. Given that if you get drunk you might then do something you regret, surely there should be a high barrier (in the form of a high age limit) before we allow individuals to make that choice.
Studies show that most people have consumed alcohol in the UK before they reach their 18th birthday,...

Although there are underage drinkers in every country, the question is whether the law should encourage them or act as a clear moral standard. It is noticeable that in the US where the limit is 21 fewer 17 year olds have consumed alcohol than in the UK where the limit is 18. Clearly, although some people will always drink underage, a higher age limit leads to underage drinking beginning later. If age limits were enforced more strongly, perhaps by standardised ID cards (such as are being proposed in the UK), this would further reduce underage drinking.
While adverts for alcopops and beer may make underage drinking seem more attractive, they are not th...

It has been argued that part of the problem with underage drinking has been created by alcohol companies themselves. They created and have marketed alcopops (alcohol which tastes like a soft drink) since the 1990s. Whether these were deliberately designed for teenagers or not, the fact that they do not taste of alcohol and can be seen as a step-up from fizzy drinks like lemonade has made them attractive to teenagers. There have been greater limits placed on alcohol advertising over the last decade in Britain to stop adverts being targeted at people who are underage. However, further measures, perhaps including a complete ban on alcohol advertising as with tobacco, would help to reduce the cool factor and accessibility of alcopops thereby helping to tackle underage alcohol consumption without weakening the law.
Both the Constitution (Article II) and the 2001 law authorizing the use of “all necessary and approp...

Conducting surveillance without FISA authorization via a US court is a felony. The Constitution clearly states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and gives Congress the sole right to enact or modify laws. Claiming expansive constitutional powers in an effort to justify violating laws is unacceptable – the president cannot choose which laws he will obey. Furthermore, the law that the proposition cites authorized military force against Afghanistan. It was never meant to justify domestic surveillance.
Both the Constitution (Article II) and the 2001 law authorizing the use of “all necessary and approp...

Both the Constitution (Article II) and the 2001 law authorizing the use of “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the September 11 attacks give the president the legal authority for the no-warrant surveillance. Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief, and as such he is responsible for defending the nation and should have the right to determine how best to do so.
Communications have changed since the passage of FISA, as has the nature of our enemy. In 1978 the ...

The United States has faced many threats in its history and has often reacted with policies it later regrets. Consider the mass internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We have often been tempted to abridge our liberties in times of stress, but this is precisely when we must defend them most vigorously. The United States was founded on certain values – if we ignore or reject these values, we may win the war on terrorism but lose the freedoms that define us.
Communications have changed since the passage of FISA, as has the nature of our enemy. In 1978 the ...

Communications have changed since the passage of FISA, as has the nature of our enemy. In 1978 the USSR was our principal foe, and the NSA could easily retrieve telephone satellite communications. Today our enemy is not a superpower but terrorist organizations that can move easily and change cell phones and e-mail addresses at will. To fight terror, US intelligence operatives need to act quickly, with a minimum of red tape, and must gather information in new ways. Also, most of the world’s broadband communications pass through the United States, making monitoring of potential enemies easy for NSA. However, distinguishing between “foreign” and “domestic” calls is difficult.