mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations.  1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011
government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011
health general weight house would ban junk food schools Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy.  Schools may seem like a perfect place to effect behavioral change in youth, since 95% of young people are enrolled in schools. [1]  But what researchers find is that changing the choices we have available does not necessarily lead to any behavioral change. Penny Gordon-Larsen, one of the researchers, wrote: "Our findings suggest that no single approach, such as just having access to fresh fruits and veggies, might be effective in changing the way people eat. We really need to look at numerous ways of changing diet behaviors. There are likely more effective ways to influence what people eat.” [2]  In the case of school children is this point seems particularly salient. Given that high school students in the US average only 6 hours in school [3] and the widespread availability of fast and other forms of “junk food”, we can hardly expect that impacting this single environment of the school will lead to any lasting behavioral changes. Realistically, what we can expect is for school children to go outside the school to find their favorite snacks and dishes.  Even if, by some miracle, the ban would change the behavior of children in schools, there is still the matter of 10 hours (the ATUS suggests kids sleep an average of 8 hours per day) they will spend outside schools, where their meal choices will not be as tailored and limited.  [1] Wechsler, H., et al., 'The Role of Schools in Preventing Childhood Obesity', National Association of State Boards of Education, December 2004,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Nordqvist, C., 'No Single Approach Will Solve America's Obesity Epidemic', Medical News Today, 11 June 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [3] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'American Time Use Survey', 22 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011
n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social Social media can be powerful educational resources.  Many teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’, which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that [1] . It also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss their use and their value.  [1] Khan, Salman. ”Turning the Classroom Upside Down.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 April 2011.
government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious It would not be necessary to ban all religious symbols if one was banned. Banning religious symbols that are regarded as dangerous, such as the Kirpan, would be very different from banning crucifixes as the justification would be different.1 And if people start asking for other things to be banned, their cases should be listened to. Some of them may have a point for banning them. However if a symbol poses a risk then it should be banned in order to prevent that risk.  1 'Kirpan incident raises questions about court ruling', The Montreal Gazette, 16th September 2008 , accessed on 25th July 2011
government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious It is their culture and religion.  Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1  1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011
nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross Other religions have the right to wear prescribed clothing enshrined in British law, it is hypocritical not to offer Christianity the same protection.  Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory. [i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board.  Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity.  The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger). [ii] Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here.  Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any.  [i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000,   [ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12
government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Studies have been conducted on cities where a handgun ban has been implemented. It found that cities such as New York and DC continued to exhibit high rates of crime and proved to be some of the most dangerous cities in the world, regardless of the ban on guns.6  As mentioned, this is because criminal gangs and criminogenic neighbourhoods in these cities have become entrenched. Anyone desperate enough to seek out a handgun- either for use in a crime or as a means of defending themselves in a crime-ridden neighbourhood- is likely to be able to acquire one regardless of the legal control that city councils may attempt to put in place. In the case of stop and search laws, it proves that criminals are adaptable and change their methods based on this lower burden of proof. For example, many gangs opt to keep guns in armouries and only loan them out as and when they are necessary.
nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross.  People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater.  Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery [i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position.  The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself [ii] ; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept.  On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”. [iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved.  [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010.  [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”  [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010,
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some First, eliminating trial by jury may make other countries less willing to cooperate with us, reducing the amount of information we have about international terrorism. For example, the United States’ decision to eliminate juries from terrorism trials resulted in other countries being more reluctant to cooperate (e.g. Germany delayed the extradition of two suspected terrorists because of that decision). Second, eliminating trial by jury gives the democratic countries less of a moral high ground in advocating that other countries – often countries from which terrorists come – adopt liberal democratic structures (something which already established liberal democracies generally regard as being in their self interest). Third, refusing to grant trial by jury to suspected terrorists may make other countries less willing to grant our own citizens fair trials when they are abroad.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some If the situations in which trial by jury can be limited are clearly delineated, governments cannot justify limiting it in unjustified circumstances. Saying that the government can sometimes limit trial by jury is not equivalent to giving it a pass to do so whenever it chooses. Obviously there would need to be clear criteria as to when the government could use its power to remove a jury: factors such as the level of security threat posed by the trial, the magnitude of the crime, the imminence of danger etc. would all need to be considered. Perhaps there could be an extra-governmental body to approve such decisions. It is a slippery slope fallacy to argue that allowing the removal of trial by jury in some cases will lead to the erosion of that right in general. Indeed, many countries already do limit the right to serious, as opposed to petty crimes, and the Opp has not presented any evidence that doing so has had negative results.
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Limiting trial by jury in some cases sets the stage for limiting it in other, unjustified, cases.  Humans are fallible, and so sometimes it is better to have absolute rules against certain actions, even if we recognize that in a perfect world, it might be better to allow such actions in very specific circumstances.1 It is for this reason, for example, that we never allow evidence obtained by illegal measures to be presented in court, even though such evidence would sometimes make it possible to convict. Similarly, even if removing trial by jury might be good in individual circumstances, it is too great a power to give to a fallible government which may misuse that authority. If there is a precedent of the right to trial by jury being removed in some circumstances, even if that removal is justified, it becomes much easier for corrupt governments to remove it for unjustified reasons, and it becomes correspondingly more difficult for us to condemn that decision as illegitimate.  1Brad Hooker, "Rule Consequentialism"
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Trial by jury is too important to sacrifice it for the sake of efficiency. As explained in the Opposition case, trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of just democratic courts. There are other ways to free up resources: perhaps if we put fewer people in prison we could spend more time and money ensuring that the right people got there. As Judge McQuillan wrote, "dedication, hard work, planning and resources are the means for dealing effectively and rationally with calendar delays."1  1Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"
eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Protections offered in a court must be absolute in order for the court to be just.  A just adversarial court system is premised on absolutes: that the defence has certain absolute rights which check it against government corruption, and which ensure fair trials even at the expense of conviction. Indeed, it is for this reason that we say it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man. The protections in place that ensure fair trials must always be upheld, or else the guarantee of fairness no longer exists. If the government can sometimes remove this right, even in clearly delineated circumstances, then the right is no longer absolute, and the presumption in favour of the defence is far weaker, undermining the justness of the entire system.
americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world.  While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International.  While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US.
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy First, democracies are not necessarily more peaceful than other governments. Second, imposition of democracy is likely to fuel terrorism. First, it is not entirely clear that democracies have not gone to war: for example the Central Powers in WWI, although not classified as democracies per se, did have elected parliaments just like the Allies. Further, just because democracies have not gone to war in the past does not mean they will not in the future: a culture of negotiation within the democracy does not necessarily translate into a lack of aggression externally. Second, even if democracies are more peaceful, the imposition of democracy can threaten to world peace by fuelling terrorist movements. Invasions, particularly by Western nations, increase East-West tensions, galvanize terrorist groups by validating their claims that Western nations pose a threat. Indeed, in Osama bin Laden's public "letter to the American people," he cited interventions in Somalia, Palestine, India, Chechnya, Lebanon and Iraq as reasons for the 9/11 attacks1/2.  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.  2 bin Laden, Osama. "Full Text: bin Laden's 'Letter to America.' The Guardian.
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Don’t panic!  The role of the security services is in part to deal with some very dangerous ideas and events. But the point is to deal with them in such a way that does not cause public disorder or even panic. We clearly don’t want every report detailing specific threats to be made public, especially if it is reporting something that could be devastating but there is a low risk of it actually occurring. If such information is taken the wrong way it can potentially cause panic, either over nothing, or else in such a way that it damages any possible response to the crisis. Unfortunately the media and the public often misunderstand risk. For example preventing terrorism has been regularly cited in polls as being the Americans top foreign policy goal with more than 80% thinking it very important in Gallup polls for over a decade [1] even when the chance of being killed by terrorism in Western countries is very low. If the public misunderstands the risk the response is unlikely to be proportionate and can be akin to yelling fire in a packed theatre.  While it is not (usually) a security, but rather a public health issue, pandemics make a good example. The question of how much information to release is only slightly different than in security; officials want to release enough information that everyone is informed, but not so much that there is panic whenever there is an unusual death. [2] In 2009 the WHO declared swine flu to be a pandemic despite it being a relatively mild virus that did not cause many deaths, so causing an unnecessary scare and stockpiling of drugs. [3]  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal’, Gallup Politics, 20 February 2013  [2] Honigsbaum, Mark, ‘The coronavirus conundrum: when to press the panic button’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2013  [3] Cheng, Maria, ‘WHO’s response to swine flu pandemic flawed’, Phys.org, 10 May 2011
terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part The presumption of innocence is a principle worth defending and an important part of this is rejecting policing strategies that assume certain groups are more likely to be engage in criminal activity than others. In the last ten years, a few dozen people, at most, have been involved in terrorist acts at airports. Meanwhile, millions upon millions of young, Muslim men have flown across continents and oceans without the slightest disruption.  It is both unfair and foolish to target a single group as being more likely to contain terrorists. It builds resentment among the group concerned and is unlikely to reveal any practical results because of the numbers concerned.
disease health general sex sexuality house believes employees should be compelled It’s in the interests of employers  It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively.  [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,
disease health general sex sexuality house believes employees should be compelled Employers have a right to know about issue which will affect their business. An employee with a serious incurable illness which requires a large amount of medication to control is inevitably going to affect the business in a way that the employer will have to know about in order to work around it.  Aside from the fact that HIV status need not be communicated to co-workers, managers and employers already have a duty to prevent harassment and prejudice in any circumstances and this would not change.
disease health general sex sexuality house believes employees should be compelled It’s in the interests of co-workers  It’s in the interests of other workers. The possibility of transmission, while very unlikely, is real and one they have a right to know about so as to be able to guard against it. While most of the time it will not be problem as transmission requires a transfer of bodily fluids this may occasionally happen in a workplace. [1] This is particularly true of healthworkers (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives, paramedics, etc) who should have both a moral and a legal obligation to disclose if they are HIV-positive. Even outside the medical field industrial accidents may expose employees to risk. Employers have a duty to protect their workforce.  [1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘HIV Transmission’, Department of Health and Human Services,