mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded.  How can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer?  The charge of blasphemy is far more than saying ‘I didn’t enjoy this’ or ‘not my kind of show’, it is a deeply held belief that what has been said is a deliberate and willful attack on values and beliefs that the viewer holds sacred and fundamental to who they are.  All major broadcasters, including the BBC, routinely test shows and monitor audience response and yet, in this particular regard, feel relaxed about producing material that certain viewers would consider it not only uncomfortable but sinful to watch. By definition, those viewers cannot watch those shows or, quite probably, that station and yet they are still expected to pay for it.  Even if a British viewer were to choose never to watch the BBC again because of the offence caused by programmes such as Jerry Springer: The Opera, they would still be paying the salaries of those who had caused the offence in the first place. That cannot be reasonable by any standard.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.  The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development.  The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million [i] . That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust.  [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme It is wrong to suggest that the BBC has any duty on account of its relative funding freedom to give a platform to controversial works of art. On the contrary the BBC has a higher obligation to viewers not to offend them because they are also licence payers. Highlighting the BBC’s global audience also has little meaning as the global audience did not all have the opportunity to watch the programme – the numbers are global and include radio. The 1,500 protesters outside BBC studios was a small slice of the tens of thousands who voiced their protest in one form or another. These protests took place outside productions around the world involving Christians from many walks of life as well as the numerous complaints. However the BBC, dominated by an out of touch urban elite, clearly had little interest in the huge amount of offence that it had caused.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme The BBC may be unusual but it is designed to fulfill particular functions. The very reason for its existence is to provide a platform for the free expression of a wide range of views, tailored to a wide range of viewers. Within that context, it cannot be expected that everyone will feel equally comfortable with every programme – indeed if that were the case, they would be breaching their own commitments to reflect diverse, often special, interests. There are other services and broadcasters who receive support from the licence fee, so those who wish to view elsewhere are not throwing away their investment. [i]  [i] Holmwood, Leigh et al., ‘Digital Britain: BBC licence fee to help fund broadband and ITV local news’, the Guardian, 16 June 2009.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme Proposition are obfuscating attacks on the right to a free expression of religious faith, free of ridicule or threat for doing so behind the BBCs obligation to be fair. This right is established in national and international law where it is not treated as comparable to what someone might find interesting as part of the nights viewing. The latter is clearly trivial by comparison to the former.  Those leading the protests have been quite clear that they have no objection to free speech and discussing, and disagreeing with, various religious themes – so long as that is done in a respectful manner. It was offensive that it had been shown at the National Theatre and then in Cambridge; for it to be broadcast on the de facto ‘flag carrier’ of British broadcasting is simply unfair to the many Christian licence fee payers who help fund the BBC’s output [i] .  [i] The Christian Voice. Statement from their website in 2005.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.  The role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest [i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship.  Many perceive commonly held positions in the mainstream churches – let alone more extreme sects – to be offensive or reactionary and, in some cases, a cover for homophobic, illiberal or sexist opinions.  If religious opinion is to be granted this airtime for the benefit of a small, if vocal, minority then it seems both unfair and unprofessional for that broadcaster to be constrained by that groups views in relation to the rest of its output.  The BBC, like most major broadcasters, meets the challenge of divergent or conflicting views by providing some output that is considered likely to be of interest to each viewpoint.  [i] National Secular Society. Press Release: “BBC Must Not Become the Evangelical Wing of the Church of England.” 9 February 2010.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.  The BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme.  As a result, although some of the responsibility for avoiding offence lies with the broadcaster at least an equal share must lie with the viewer. Even at the more basic level of ‘will I like this’, responsibility lies with both parties. The BBC undertakes to provide a diverse range of programming so that there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming majority should be able to find something of interest but does so on the assumption that people will watch what they find interesting.  Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that people will not go out of their way to watch things that they already expect to find offensive.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme In the same way that the BBC is routinely criticised from the political Right for its Left-wing bias and from the Left for a supposed favouritism to the Right, maintaining balance in any sphere of life is difficult. Freedom of speech demands that such a balance is maintained, however hard to do. That balance can mean that last week’s bosom buddies may be this week’s fiercest foes. The reality of both free expression and a public service ethos mean that one cannot, constantly yield to the cry of ‘more of what I like’. Any broadcaster could not show a greater disrespect to its viewers than by assuming they could not be capable of dealing with new ideas.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards.  A week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed [i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin.  Christian symbols and imagery are routinely profaned by major broadcasters, publishers and others in a way that would simply not be tolerated if they were directed at ‘minority’ faiths in the UK.  Article Four (4) of the BBC’s charter [ii] stipulates quite clearly that all of the UK’s communities should be reflected in all of its activities. Despite this the interests of the community that is represented by the established church of the country, headed by the monarch, receives the least support or consideration from the institution.  [i]   [ii] BBC Charter.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme There is clearly a different threshold between the questions “do I like soap operas?” and “do I appreciate having my beliefs excoriated on national TV?” The difficulty here is that many who took offence saw the programme as a direct attack on themselves personally, their beliefs and the others who shared their faith.
nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, who is himself a practising Christian, said that he found ‘nothing blasphemous’ about the programme [i] . The protests were small and overwhelmingly organised by one group. There is simply no case for a right not to be offended by something you’ve seen; far less for something you haven’t. This would equally apply if the programme had been offensive to some Muslims as it does to a programme that is offensive to some Christians.  [i] BBC News Website. “Protests as BBC Screens Springer”. 10 January 2005.
bate media and good government international africa house believes limited Many donors have been deeply reluctant to stop or reduce aid, whatever the arguments over eastern Congo[1]. Donors like to see their money have an impact, something that Rwanda’s transformation has provided. There might be concern about freedom of speech and the press but donors recognise that the way to change this is not to simply stop aid; an act that simply damages those the donors are trying to help not those who are limiting freedom of speech.  [1] The economist, ‘The pain of suspension’, economist.com, 12 January 2013  [2] Timmins, Jerry, ‘Free speech, free press, free societies’, li.com
bate living difference international middle east house believes news If Op’s argument were true then news programmes would never end – and never need to repeat a story. Governments undertake an enormous number of actions every day that in some way impact upon their citizens and have wider implications for the wider world. By any objective standard, it is quite routine for all but the most important of these to go unreported – most consumers of news have little interest in or understanding of many of the complexities of economics or foreign policy. For example in 1999 only 29% of Americans said they were very interested in news about other countries. [1] Likewise many important developments in science or literature – frequently involving public money – are barely mentioned by a media that knows its consumers to be uninterested.  [1] Bostrom, Meg, 1999 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs An Overview of the Current State of Public Opinion’, Frameworks Institute  p.11
living difference house would penalise religious hate speech This is simply a myth. Society routinely legislates to prevent offence with restrictions on what can be said or done within a broadcast or in print. This particular case does not relate to a private conversation between friends but to a public address. As such the response of the police officers was not some Orwellian nightmare but a responsible protection of public order and a show of respect for those who, quite rightly, had taken offence at the remarks. We are rightly cautious of the state intervening too far into the private sphere but this was a public event – by the speakers own choice.
media and good government house believes community radio good Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible.  Community radio relies on the power of its ideas and the thirst for those ideas among its audience. It accepts the notion that it is the exchange of information and views, freely given and received, that is more important than the ideas themselves.  It doesn’t require massive budgets and radio waves can be received on equipment that costs pennies; more importantly it can be shared.  For all of its pretensions of accessibility the devices used to access the Internet tend to be expensive and they also tend not to be shared – unlike radios [i] .  To give some context to this, even paying Western prices, a small radio station can be started for as little as $10,000 with monthly costs of $1,000 [ii] . Some of that, of course, relates to government issued licences, clearly this does not apply if the station is planning to be ignored by the authorities. These costs can be further reduced when the founders have a pre-existing knowledge of radio engineering or work with a partner organisation such as the BBC World Service or the various NGOs who specialise in the field [iii] .  [i] Plunkett, John, Community radio: A rare success story. The Guardian. 9 March 2009.  [ii] Prometheus Radio Project.  [iii] Wikipedia. Community Radio.
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Rehabilitation Doesn’t Actually Work  While some rehabilitative programmes work with some offenders (those who would probably change by themselves anyway), most do not. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find themselves in trouble with the law within two years of release. [1] The rehabilitation programs simply do not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false promise – and the danger with such an illusory and impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify keeping offenders locked up for longer than they deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous a sentence on a person in the name of “rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work.  [1] Stanford, P., ‘The road to redemption: Does the rehabilitation of prisoners work?’, The Independent, 23 August 2007.
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Rehabilitation Does Not Serve The Needs of Society  The primary goal of our criminal justice system is to remove offenders from general society and protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in prisons. [1] Ideally therefore, retribution and rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect citizens in the short and long term. There are some successful examples of this happening, where prisons encourage inmates to take part in group activities such as football. Some prisons have started cooking programmes where inmates learn to cook in a professional environment and leave with a qualification. However the first priority is the removal of the convicted criminal from society in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation should be a secondary concern. The primary concern of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs of society are therefore met by the immediate removal of the offender.  In addition a more retributive approach serves society through the message it conveys. Most modern defences of retribution would emphasize its role in reinforcing the moral values of society and expressing the public's outrage at certain crimes. Rehabilitation therefore weakens the strong message of disgust as to the offender’s actions that a traditional prison sentence symbolises and the deterrent that it thus provides.  [1] Chang, K. O. ‘Lock up repeat offenders for life’. Jamaica Gleaner, 17 September 2006 .
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more The expense of re-offenders re-entering the system is also an expense that our prison system cannot afford. A system such as counselling for released prisoners would prove to be inexpensive when weighed against the benefits of decreased crime, and all the costs involved in that (public damage, judicial costs and prison costs). Given that many organisations work in rehabilitation programs in prisons for very little, if any, payment such a system could easily be established for counselling.  A complete system of rehabilitation and post-release counselling, to access these programs, should be paired with increased awareness programs in schools and welfare support. However, this system of combating crime is not complete without a comprehensive system of rehabilitation. If we truly want to protect society and reform criminals then we must invest more time, effort and funding into a system that can achieve this. Incarceration on its own is not working and it is time for change. An addition to the rehabilitation programme was aired on the UK television in November 2011, a new scheme where the offender meets their victim(s) in order to understand their actions have consequences. This type of programme can show visible changes or responses of the offenders as they agree to talk about their feelings and show remorse.
crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more If we had the opportunity to stop some offenders re-offending why do we not seize this opportunity? Rehabilitative programs provide such an opportunity. Such programs include cognitive-behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent offender to think and reach differently to potential ‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling programmes, and some sex-offender treatment programs. Of course, certain styles will suit some better than others, but this is someone that will have to determined case by case. As some methods with work better than others depending on attitudes, values etc.  The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by criminal standards, massive.  Rehabilitation is a concept. It is not a definite technique whose effectiveness can be precisely measured. So yes some forms of rehabilitation may not work, others however might. What the opposition to this argues is what we've deemed rehabilitation is what we will utiize going forward. However, this is illogical; as we speak, new methods of rehabilitation could be concocted. Such an indefinite ideal cannot be proven as ineffective. For example, if somebody proves that high-speel monorail transportation is ineffective, this does not mean that transportation is absolutely and fundamentally flawed. One simply cannot disprove an infinite set of hypotheses.
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority. [1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground.  [1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011,
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]  [1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011,
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression There is little certainty that undermining an autocracy will benefit the countries that undermine it. No state can full control what goes on in another state; an even more oppressive regime could be the result. Even if there is a transition to a democracy this does not mean it will benefit those who wanted change. This is because democratic governments have to take account of the desires of their own people which may not always be in alignment with the interests of the foreign powers that supported political change. Thus while it would seem that the United States, as a democracy, should be naturally inclined to support a democratic government in Egypt in practice Mubarak operated more in line with US interests by keeping the peace with Israel that the Muslim brotherhood threatens to disrupt.