BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
he is assisting in making an arrest

The assistance as to be for a 'lawful arrest'. An arrest is only lawful if an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is guilty of an offence[[s24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984]], and the person arrested is informed as soon as possible of the reason for his arrest[[s28(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984]]. As a constable is not around upon this, there is no lawful arrest taking place and therefore Batman cannot assist in such an arrest.
He is a necessary evil in the context.

Batman created his identity in response to a world where there are very real threats that can't be fought by the Police but can be fought by him. He has specific in-depth knowledge and experience of how to defeat the Joker, Two-Face etc. including gadgets he specifically built to combat their methods of attack. He has more resources than the Police and is better trained than any Policeman, the fact that he is only one person means he can act more quickly and stealthily. Criminals are far more afraid of him than they are of the Police as he has based his entire identity around being an archetype that people fear. He is also fanatically dedicated and can't be corrupted - especially necessary in a world where villains exist who are equally dedicated to evil and cannot be rehabilitated.
he is guilty of GBH with intent

Batman should be arrested as he breaks the law of Grievous Bodily Harm with intent[[s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861]]. He causes significant harm to other individuals with intent to cause such harm. Grievous harm was categorised and explained by the House of Lords to be 'really serious bodily harm [[DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290, HL]]. 'Really serious' is something for a jury to decide, but bearing in mind the extent of the weapons that batman uses, it would be reasonable to assume that a jury would consider the injuries caused as 'really serious'. The fact that Batman has such weapons to his disposal also passes the specific intent requirement; that Batman intended to cause such harm.
he is guilty of carrying offensive weapons

It is illegal for people without lawful authority, such as the police or soldiers, to carry in a public place an offensive weapon[[s1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953]]. Batman's suit is full of such weapons [[http://agentofthebat.tripod.com/batpro.html]] from the leg fins to his utility belt. All of which he carries around in public. A public place is deemed to be anywhere where the public have access to[[s1(4) Prevention of Crime Act 1953]], regardless of the time of night. Therefore he is guilty of this offence. There are actually laws against home made weapons. They need to fit certain criteria. For example, in most states it is illegal to have a switch blade (a pocket knife that opens with the push of a button, like the one the Joker has in The Dark Knight). This means it is also illegal to buy a pocket knife and modify it to open with the push of a button.
he is guilty of destroying and damaging property

Batman rages through cities and causes explosions with his use of technology. His Bat-mobile damages innocent people's cars[[http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4462224/1/Property_Damage_and_Hospital_Bills]]. It is an offence to destroy or damage property belonging to another, or being reckless as to whether such damage was caused[[s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971]]. Batman is guilty under this rule as even if it could be argued that he does not intend to cause such damage, that is no excuse. In driving fast and in throwing his enemies across rooms he is causing damage to other people's property. This is recklessness; knowing the risk but not caring if such damage was caused[[R V G (2003) UKHL 50]].
His is guilty of illegal vigilante justice

Batman takes the law in his own hands; he beats criminals up and sometimes even kills them. Batman has no respect for the legal system or court rulings; otherwise he wouldn't punish suspects before arrest and trial. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante#Works_of_fiction]] "1: My opponent claims that vigilantism was necessary on Mr. Wayne's part due to the state of anarchy in Gotham City. However, Gotham was not in a state of anarchy. There was still an active government and police force. While the government may not have been adequately combating crime, Mr. Wayne still could have avoided vigilantism, an illegal activity [1]. With Mr. Wayne's considerable finances [2] and stealth capabilities [3], he could have pursued alternative methods of ensuring the apprehension of criminals. I will detail these alternatives later in my statement. 2: While there may have been failure by the government, this failure had not yet caused true lawlessness and disorder. The fact that there was still a police force for Mr. Wayne to subdue criminals for shows that the law still remained. I will show that there were alternative ways for Mr. Wayne to reduce Gotham's significant crime rate that did not require vigilantism. 3. While I acknowledge that Mr. Wayne did reduce the crime rate in Gotham City and that a less purehearted vigilante may have eventually emerged, Mr. Wayne is still a vigilante, meaning he is a lawbreaker by nature. Since he is a violent lawbreaker who has the alternative of nonviolence, his actions are inherently unjust. While the argument can be made that he was still acting righteously, I will prove that there were viable alternatives to Wayne's vigilantism and that his activities as "Batman" serve mostly as a method of carrying out his personal vendetta against Gotham's criminals." [[http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-The-Actions-of-the-Vigilante-Known-as-Batman-are-Justified/1/]]
he uses force only in self defence

Batman does not cause harm to individuals with any other intention than the protection of others. This is a legitimate common law defence[[R v Rose (1884) 15 Cox 540]]. Batman only does what he thinks honestly and instinctively that the harm he inflicts is proportionate to the harm he is preventing and that is strong evidence that his action is reasonable and therefore constitutes lawful self defence[[s76(7)(b) The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]].
he is guilty of GBH with intent

In order for such harm to be an offence, the infliction has to be 'unlawful'. However, one of the requirements to an action being unlawful is that it is not an act of self defence. One could argue that these enemies are planning to attack Batman, and as self defence includes pre-emptive stirkes [[R v Deana, 2 Cr.App.R. 75]]. This means that you need not wait to be attacked, you may attack first with the reasonable belief that if you do not, they will harm you.
he is guilty of carrying offensive weapons

It is a defence if the person can show that they have a reasonable excuse for carrying that offensive weapon. Such reasonable defence includes protection from a specific danger[[http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/offensive-weapon-possessing.htm]]. Given the violence ridden nature of Gotham City, such a requirement can be deemed to have been met. Gotham is an American city; there are no laws against carrying weapons that were invented in your own labs; which you legally own. (Wayne Industries definitely gave Batman a receipt since he owns the joint)
he is guilty of destroying and damaging property

The offence requires that there be no lawful excuse for the damage. But Batman has two claims to a lawful excuse. He can claim that he believed that the person to whom the property belonged would have consented to the destruction of the property had they known the circumstances [[s5(2)(a) Criminal Damage Act 1971]]. This is a persuasive reason not to arrest Batman as most people would consent to the destruction of their property in order for a dangerous criminal to be caught. The test is whether Batman believed such consent would have been made, not that it actually was there. It is not necessary that such a belief is justified, just that it is honestly held by Batman [[s5(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971]]
Any legislation would be impossible to enforce

100% enforcement may be impossible, but bans can reduce the frequency of exposure. Much of the effect of violence or sex on childhood development takes the form of desensitization to such acts, thereby lowering the normal psychological barriers that prevent people from engaging in similar behavior. Desensitization is caused by repeated exposure, so it makes sense that reducing the frequency of exposure, even if it cannot be reduced to zero, might reduce some of the social harms. It seems perfectly clear that in the absence of the bans imposed by most countries, children would probably see a lost more sex and violence than they do currently. More effective age validation software on the internet, coupled with current enforcement efforts at movie theatres and other media outlets can significantly mitigate the harms. Moreover, the inability to enforce laws does not mean we should give up in our attempts. No law is enforced 100%, does our failure there mean we should give up on drunk driving or murder? If partial enforcement can bring a partial return, then principles of harm reduction encourage us to make our best attempt.
Any legislation would be impossible to enforce

Legal restrictions would be nearly impossible to enforce in the way that same trying to restrict what children watch on DVD's is. Currently the law prohibits children from buying DVD's and video shops from selling and renting them. This may have an effect in that it stops children unless they use fake ID from renting or buying DVD's that may be too violent or sexually explicit etc. However its a wide net as adults can and do rent DVD's ostensibly for their use but which is really for their child's use. Restricting what a person watched on their TV would be more impossible given that parental controls can only be put on by parents and not children.
banning wouldn't stop people viewing them

Not All programs with explicit content ARE educational. Tasteful nudity or swearing is not banned even for children( watch National geographic or discovery science). These bans act as warnings and work well with responsible parents and children. Children KNOW that this is bad and if they choose to see it, great. BUT if there were no such bans or warnings , unwilling children would unwittingly stumble upon content that just serves cheap thrills. Removing restrictions, would be unfair to the many children who respect them and whom they protect.
banning wouldn't stop people viewing them

children technically aren't supposed to watch programmes after the watershed anyway. this makes them more likely to want to - it makes the programmes look cool and exciting. kids sneak into films over their age limit all the time and sneak downstairs to watch the TV when their parents have gone to bed. if the adults just sat down with them in front of some of the programmes that weren't too bad, explained to them about what kind of things are on adult programmes, which they should trust, which are informative etc. they wouldn't be like the forbidden fruit. the other side to the coin is that children's programmes should actually be interesting and not patronising - children's news should contain actual relevant news, not dumbed down too much, not biased.
Viewing antisocial behaviour may not necessarily lead to its being assimilated, it may in fact cause revulsion

The revulsion mentioned in the opposing argument is predicated on the viewer of revolting possessing full, rational agency. The argument is an application of Mill's "Marketplace of Ideas" concept, in which rational agents will, more often than not, reject negative or harmful ones. Children do not possess the mental faculties to make these kinds of decisions. This is why they're not allowed to drive or own guns either. While the research on the subject is mixed, it generally agrees that exposure to violence will cause some children (usually those already at risk of antisocial behavior) to mimic violent or inappropriate actions and lowers psychological barriers against such action in the future.
Viewing antisocial behaviour may not necessarily lead to its being assimilated, it may in fact cause revulsion

Whilst it may be argued that merely seeing and knowing the existence of a type of antisocial behaviour may inure us to its being committed, it may also forearm us against such behaviour and even lead to revulsion and the resolution not to immitate what we see. The responsibility lies with how the programme maker is seen to reward or punish the good or bad behaviour that that depict
__

The problem with violent or sexual material being viewed by children is not that they necessarily lead to "anti-social" behaviors but that they are having an affect on society as a whole. Younger and younger children are viewing what some deem inappropriate materials and are coming out on the otherside completely desensitized to human suffering. As a society we may not have such a problem with someone in America not caring about someone in Iraq because of proximity issues, but what about when dozens of people walk past a rape victim without offering help? Violence and sex are pushed on us to normalize the behavior and cause us to not think critically about the human circumstance. Ultimately though, the push to change any of this has to come from consumers as we live in a consumerist society. This of course, is only possible when parents jump on board and stop letting their children decide what they want to watch.
__

Not all young people exposed to violent/'adult' material are influenced. The amount that young people are influenced by environment(media) is different in every individual. It is not the responisiblity of the media companies to tone down or limit 'adult' material, but the responsibility of parents to decide or control what they allow their children to be exposed to. I, personally, don't find myself influenced to steal cars or kill people in real life after playing 'Grand Theft Auto'. Aswell, I don't feel compelled to take drugs after watching 'Skins'.
Watching adult content can make children susceptible to commiting violent or sexually inappropriate acts

In a study done carried out by Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute in 2002 children who watched between one and three hours of children's television programmes each week had a higher chance of growing up to commit violent acts than those who watched less than an hour of childrens TV a day[[ BBC Online News "Talking Point can watching childrenhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1900498.stm]]. Now although this study is based on children's television it raises questions as to what adult content a child should watch. Already we get reports of violent attacks by children and sexual assualts on children by children being exposed to things at a younger age than they should have been.
Clinging to an idea of monolithic, national identity is anachronistic. The nation-state model for so...

Clinging to an idea of monolithic, national identity is anachronistic. The nation-state model for society is crumbling, and is being out-stripped by trans-national models, such as the European Union. As a result, there is less emphasis on fetishising the predominant characteristics in an area and putting them in a pedestal to be called a “national identity.” Such exclusive nationalism is destructive, and history shows it to be so.
America can hardly be cited as an example of racial harmony. The perpetuation of a “national” identi...

America can hardly be cited as an example of racial harmony. The perpetuation of a “national” identity inevitably leads to the alienation of those, who through religious or other reasons, chose not to conform. If the “normal” or “national” identity does not include turban or head-dress or robe wearing, then those who do wear these things are excluded from the mainstream identity. This conjures up the dichotomy of the “other” and leaves people prone to ignorant attack.
Clinging to an idea of monolithic, national identity is anachronistic. The nation-state model for so...

We reject the demise of the nation-state totally. It is still the primary mode of international business and national identity. The United States can be admired for the way it has absorbed millions of immigrants and yet maintained a unique, undeniably American identity. American school children pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the values that entails. This is a sound model of nation building.
We should embrace the fact that people can support both Pakistan and England, or India and Scotland ...

This is naïve and presumes, arrogantly, that we have moved beyond the point where we are at risk from enemies. As the rise in extremism, and its support from our own citizens show, we have been too liberal and too soft. We have forgotten why nationhood is important and why we all need to feel a communal belonging and affinity with the basic values of our society.
Being asked to abide by laws is one thing, but conforming “to certain norms” sounds insidious. Many ...

Being asked to abide by laws is one thing, but conforming “to certain norms” sounds insidious. Many ways of living are equally valid, even if they are not regarded as “normal” by some people. If a society claims to be tolerant of personal choice, then it must respect the personal choice to retain their heritage. Anything less smacks of social engineering.
Even if all subjects must show practical economic utility, the study of Classics is still justifiabl...

Even if all subjects must show practical economic utility, the study of Classics is still justifiable. Translation of Latin and Greek teaches concentration, attention to detail and logical thought. Debates about the interpretation of classical literature develop the ability to think critically and to construct reasoned arguments. Familiarity with classical literature improves the ability to write clearly, concisely and eloquently. These are all skills valued by employers; people who have studied Classics have reached the top of politics, commerce, diplomacy and law.
Knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek is helpful for those who wish to learn modern languages. They a...

Knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek is helpful for those who wish to learn modern languages. They are useful for understanding the etymology (the study of the origins and development of words) of English words. Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian (the Romance languages) are derived from Latin: knowledge of Latin vocabulary greatly eases the learning of these languages. Much modern language teaching emphasises conversational skills rather than grammatical rules; classical language teaching is usually based upon grammar, rather than conversation. Pupils therefore develop a clear understanding of how languages work by studying classical languages; this can be applied to the study of both their own language and modern foreign languages.
Works written in Latin and Greek (e.g. by Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Vergil) address issues...

Works written in Latin and Greek (e.g. by Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Vergil) address issues fundamental to the human condition, such as love, death, politics, morality and adventure. These works have stood the test of time: they exerted great influence on western thinking for two millennia and remain widely read. This indicates that they are of great literary and intellectual merit. Few modern works are likely to endure so long; this implies they are of less merit. Time should therefore be devoted to studying classical literature. The subtleties of any text can only be fully understood if one reads them in the original; knowledge of Latin and Greek is therefore of great use.
The influence of classical texts upon subsequent writing and thought makes knowledge of Latin and Gr...

The influence of classical texts upon subsequent writing and thought makes knowledge of Latin and Greek necessary for many areas of intellectual enquiry. European literature bristles with classical allusions: the work of Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe and countless others cannot be fully appreciated without close familiarity with the canon of classical writing. Since Latin was the language of academic discussion until the eighteenth century, it is of great importance for the study of History and Theology. The teaching of classical languages at school enables people to pursue studies in these areas in later life.
These benefits should be extended to all, not just the privileged few who can currently learn Latin ...

These benefits should be extended to all, not just the privileged few who can currently learn Latin and Greek. If the benefits of classical study are as great as those the proposition points above claim, Latin and Greek should be compulsory in all schools. This is possible, despite the shortage of qualified Classics teachers, because of the wealth of internet resources available (e.g. the Cambridge School Classics Project).
Learning classical languages gives pleasure to many who study them, since they are satisfying intell...

The world is increasingly economically competitive. If young people are to secure employment and economies are to prosper, we must focus on science, technology and business studies. Vague notions of cultural enrichment do not remove the necessity that schools produce employable young people. No profession, other than the teaching of classical languages, requires knowledge of Latin or Greek, especially since increasing efforts are being made to make law comprehensible to the general public. Advanced scientific study can be just as intellectually challenging and satisfying as learning Latin or Greek and is more economically useful.
Even if all subjects must show practical economic utility, the study of Classics is still justifiabl...

All these skills can be learned through the study of other subjects, including one’s own language and other foreign languages. These subjects also have practical utility in themselves, unlike Latin and Greek. The prominence of people who have studied Classics in positions of power is a result of their social backgrounds or inherent intellectual abilities, not a classical education. Most people who have studied Classics attended either private schools (implying that they came from a privileged background) or schools intended for the academically gifted.
Knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek is helpful for those who wish to learn modern languages. They a...

The study of etymology is of purely academic interest. It is more efficient to learn what words mean than to spend time learning a whole new language in order to be able to work out what words are likely to mean. It is also more efficient to learn modern foreign languages directly, rather than to learn Latin and/or Greek first. Once one has learned one foreign language, it is comparatively easy to learn another, since one has developed the techniques for learning vocabulary and grammatical structures. The similarities between the Romance languages mean that one can just as easily use knowledge of Italian to learn Spanish as one can use knowledge of Latin to learn either of these languages. Pupils should learn grammar when studying both their own language and modern foreign languages. It is absurd to suggest that they need to learn a dead language in order to do so. The regularity of German particularly lends itself to grammatical study.