query
stringlengths 251
5.5k
| hits
listlengths 100
101
|
|---|---|
Social disgust can be central to artwork Some forms of art rely strongly on the provocation of disgust or other strong reactions. For example, conceptual artists often rely heavily upon the provocation of strong emotions in the viewer as a way of drawing attention to important, taboo areas (e.g. death, religion and sexuality). If they are banned from doing this, then we lose an entire branch of art: we are left instead with forms of art that choose not to engage with these areas at all. Particularly in cases where people want to draw attention to what they see as unnecessary taboos, shock is integral. For example, the work of Sarah Lucas explored taboos surrounding sexuality and gender: her work drew attention to stereotyping and taboo in a way that (necessarily) many people found disgusting. Further, it is possible to critically engage with that disgust. It is wrong to assume that the end point of a provocative piece of art is “oh, I’ve been provoked”. Rather, this emotional first response is only the beginning when it comes to the contemplation of that work. Thinking about the reasons for your disgust, and its context, allows us a greater insight into the work, which if you believe ideas are central to pieces of art (which conceptual artists do) is vital.
|
[
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: First, it seems implausible that there are ideas that can only be conveyed by instant, emotional responses. It must surely be possible to convey these ideas in other ways. Second, it is unclear why it is so important that these reactions are provoked: surely if something is incredibly shocking it is that way for a reason? Something cannot provoke social disgust without taking a clear stride over the line of what we consider to be acceptable in society. The taboos that exist in society are not meaningless: rather, they express inviolable values that are present throughout time, and in many different societies.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01b",
"rank": 1,
"score": 258024
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing Great, socially liberal movements have always been controversial, and always been supported, encouraged and propagated by art. Art is a realm wherein an artist’s expression is less limited by social structures (like the necessity of pleasing your box; of being ‘commercially viable’). Subsequently it has easily, and often, been utilised as a means of changing public opinion. Some of these movements, for example, the breaking down of stereotypes and norms surrounding sexuality (in particular female sexuality) and gender that Sarah Lucas, Tracey Emin and others contributed to in the liberalising 80s and 90s, attract social disgust. In any situation where a taboo is being attacked, this will happen. The converse however, is not the case: it is almost impossible to provoke social disgust by maintaining the status quo. As a result, restriction of art that provokes social disgust will disproportionately attack the socially liberal, and thus help to maintain the status quo, regardless of whether it is worthy of such protection.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con03a",
"rank": 2,
"score": 248081
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual. An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily. For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro02a",
"rank": 3,
"score": 246368
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their message across. Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute art of the sort that should be receiving either public support or attention. It is important to recognise that public displays and funding of art are limited commodities, so every time one piece is chosen for an exhibition, or an artist is given money, this comes at the cost of other possible pieces of art. It is surely better to support those artists who have chosen to express their ideas and messages in a way that does not rely on simple attention-grabbing horror: it is surely more artistically meritorious to create a work that conveys its message in a way that rewards close attention and careful study, with layers of meaning and technique.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro01a",
"rank": 4,
"score": 231892
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: The power of the visual Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect. In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street). In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro03a",
"rank": 5,
"score": 219665
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Whilst it is the case in individual instances that, if one piece of art is censored, another on a different topic may be produced, when looked at in a wider context this is not the case. If we restrict artists in all cases where someone is disgusted, an enormous quantity of subjects will be off limits. This will have, not only a negative impact on that artist, but a deleterious effect on whole branches of art. Further, restricting any art that could cause social disgust is an unreasonable restriction to place upon society (or gallery curators, or grant allocation committees). It is difficult to know at what point a piece will cross the line from simply ‘provocative’ to ‘disgusting’. Consequently, people will be forced to err on the side of caution, leading to an excessive caution and restriction: overcensorship. When weighed against these harms, it is far from clear that individual disgust can be elevated to this extent!",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro02b",
"rank": 6,
"score": 219459
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: We are no less able to consent to art than we are to every other manifestation of individuality in society. We are similarly unable to consent to, but strongly impacted by, all sorts of things, from music videos and adverts to people dressed strangely on the street. However, as a society we accept that people’s core values ought to be robust enough to survive challenges in the public sphere: we allow debate, art and music on many topics that have enormous personal ramifications, from euthanasia to deportation. As a consequence, it is only legitimate to restrict the worst excesses, whose impact can be measured objectively, before display: we set rules in this regard restricting the worst instances of, for example, exploitation and pornography. Further, those who are worst affected can self-limit their exposure: it is rare that people are entirely unaware of the existence of a controversial piece of art, and as such people can choose not to view it, or to view it only briefly. They should not have the right to prevent everyone else from seeing such a piece.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro03b",
"rank": 7,
"score": 190935
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Who determines whether something is too disgusting? It is also hard to separate a piece of work’s artistic merit from its impact. It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display great technical competence, and yet fail to have an emotional impact on its audience, and so as a consequence it seems most sensible to allow, display and fund as wide a display of art as possible. Limiting the forms of art that we display or give funding to those considered ‘artistically meritorious’ will result in the loss of innovation in the art world: if we only encourage those pieces that are ‘good’ under present-day metrics, we lose those pieces of art that, though considered controversial, or ‘not art’ now, may in the future be considered masterpieces (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica).",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-pro01b",
"rank": 8,
"score": 188535
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Social change does not come from pieces of art. It comes from real, concrete political action and struggles, over time. It is unclear, therefore, why it should not be the case that we ought first to campaign for changes to society, and then display (newly) acceptable art reflecting upon the changes we have made. To do otherwise is to suggest that artists should be allowed special dispensation to run ‘ahead’ of the norms the rest of us feel bound by: note that it is not always the case that disgusting art later becomes acceptable. Not all transgressions are for the sake of future changes to society; some simply remain transgressions.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con03b",
"rank": 9,
"score": 187136
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Freedom of speech Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they see, as they see it. Freedom of speech is considered integral to the modern democracy, and with good reason! Free speech makes a vital contribution to a plurality of ideas. It is only when a great number of ideas are expressed and challenged, such that people’s beliefs remain fluid, and can be formed and reformed, that we are able to arrive at such a point where we are likely to progress. This ‘marketplace of ideas’ prevents us from stagnating; from continuing harmful practices and modes of thought simply because they are traditional. The more free speech is limited, the less able we are to access this plurality of ideas, and thus the less able we are to truly challenge harmful habits.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con02a",
"rank": 10,
"score": 177154
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion. Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers. Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-con01b",
"rank": 11,
"score": 169747
},
{
"content": "Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Content: Freedom of speech is evidently not an absolute right: it is not something that we consider to be inviolable and able to ‘trump’ all other rights. Note, for instance, that many countries have restrictions on freedom of speech preventing hate speech and other transgressions. We can, therefore, limit freedom of speech in instances where the benefits outweigh the harm: the benefit in this instance being the prevention of harm to individuals as a result of the art.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con02b",
"rank": 12,
"score": 164436
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Content: Freedom of expression is essential for women Social movements should limit themselves to pushing for the rights of social groups, not restricting them. The feminist movement, as a social movement, should not limit the voices of women in the same way their oppressors have throughout history. Banning pornography would directly restrict the freedom of choice of women who want to manifest their sexuality and express themselves in revolutionary ways in art and media. Examples such as amateur and improvised porn, which are independent of a director, show the deep value of self-expression and self-definition women can find in this form of art. The desire of some actresses to become internationally recognised as ‘sex symbols’, become porn stars, or simply convey that sex is for women too, is a legitimate one, and not an act of desperation. This must be taken into account in cases of pornography between consenting adults, for consenting adults.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con01a",
"rank": 13,
"score": 123517
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted. Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice [1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned. For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state. Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism. All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins [2] , with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society. [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation. [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro03a",
"rank": 14,
"score": 122986
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Content: Attempting to ban it would only cause further problems There is no guarantee that a ban on pornography would improve gender stereotypes: in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Pornography is a flourishing industry with incredibly high demand, and much like with prohibition in the past, it is naïve to believe a ban can make a difference. It is actually even harder with pornography, because of the ease through which it can be distributed through the net. Rather, a ban would expand the black market with all the problems that come with it today: child and non-consensual pornography, violence, unhealthy conditions, and a general lack of regulations. Furthermore, the extent that a ban could ever limit pornography, this would lead to further problems. On one hand, the feminist movement sends a worrying message that sex is harmful to women, and by extension that sex is for the benefit of men. Restoring a taboo on sexuality actively confines women to being dominated in bed, and in society in general. Secondly, if pornography is limited, the vessels through which men can satisfy their sexual urges are also restricted. This can lead, at best, to greater sexual harassment, greater pressure on women to provide sexual services, and to more infidelity. At worst, and most probably, it leads to higher levels of rape.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con03a",
"rank": 15,
"score": 117495
},
{
"content": "Title: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Content: Providing attention simply encourages the regime North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round. [1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour. [1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-oapdhwinkp-pro02a",
"rank": 16,
"score": 113233
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Upon entering the public arena works of art take on characters of their own, often far different than their original creators did, or could have, imagined. The art is consumed, absorbed, and reimagined and takes on its own identity that the artist cannot claim full ownership over. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. That art does, due to its origination belong more to the people, who should have access, even if the artist, like Beckett has bizarrely rigorous feelings about the work.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ascidfakhba-con02b",
"rank": 17,
"score": 109749
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Upon entering the public arena works of art take on characters of their own, often far different than their original creators did, or could have, imagined. The art is consumed, absorbed, and reimagined and takes on its own identity that the artist cannot claim full ownership over. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. That art does, due to its origination belong more to the people, who should have access, even if the artist, like Beckett has bizarrely rigorous feelings about the work.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-science-ascidfakhba-con02b",
"rank": 18,
"score": 109749
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard. Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one. Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society. In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con01a",
"rank": 19,
"score": 109206
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Once a piece of art enters the public sphere, it takes on a character of its own as it is consumed, absorbed, and assimilated by other artists. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. This can only be furthered by a significant reduction in length of copyright protections. It is also disingenuous to suggest that the artist’s work is not itself the product of exposure to other artists’ work. All art is a response, even if only laterally, to the previous traditions. While those who gain a copyright get it because of a ‘novel concept’ it is open to question just how novel this has to be. A painter who paints a new painting in a style never seen before may well still be using oil and canvas just as thousands of artists have in the past.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-con02b",
"rank": 20,
"score": 108651
},
{
"content": "Title: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Content: While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] . [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011, on 16/09/11 [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010, on 16/09/2011. [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011, on 16/09/11. [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011, on 09/09/11",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-science-ciidfaihwc-pro01b",
"rank": 21,
"score": 107341
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Content: Hate speech The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it. The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years. Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups. Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces. Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities. It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms. [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012. [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-pro02a",
"rank": 22,
"score": 105613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a difference between a government banning art, and having the good sense not to do certain things in art. Further, the “artistic skill” in drawing a provocative cartoon is rather minimal; it is not as though cartoonists are held to particularly high technical standards of drawing. Rather, cartoons are usually a vehicle by which a cartoonist conveys a joke (usually at someone or some group’s expense) for a cheap laugh. Cartoons no more constitute art than graffiti with an offensive statement on a factory wall constitutes art – that is to say, not at all.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-mrrtdnsnhpc-con02b",
"rank": 23,
"score": 104471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No-one is in a vacuum – everyone has social pressures affecting what they wear. Banning veils itself is divisive and will create strong reactions in highly religious communities [1] . Framing laws that only ban the veil could be seen as an attack on Islam, and lead Muslim communities to think they are being unfairly targeted. The result will be that they won’t co-operate with people of other faiths. This would be bad for society and make extremists more influential. [1] Huffington Post, ‘France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws in Europe’, 4 November 2011,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-religion-frgsbnaofcs-pro03b",
"rank": 24,
"score": 104237
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and family after, including after they are dead Artists may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists rarely have pensions of the sort that people in other professions have as they are rarely employed by anyone for more than a short period. [1] As a result artists who depend on their creations for their wherewithal look to their art and copyright as a guaranteed pension, a financial protection they can rely on even if they are too old to continue artistic or other productive work for their upkeep. They also recognize the need of artists to be able to support their dependents, many of whom too rely on the artist’s output. In the same way financial assets like stocks can be bequeathed to people for them to profit, so too must copyright be. Copyright is a very real asset and financial protection that should be sustained for the sake of artists’ financial wellbeing and that of their loved ones. [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-con03a",
"rank": 25,
"score": 103931
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Artists have a fundamental property right over their creative output Whatever the end product, be it music, film, sculpture, or painting, artistic works are the creations of individuals and a property right inheres within them belonging to their creators. An idea is just an idea so long as it remains locked in someone’s mind or is left as an unfinished sketch, etc. But when the art is allowed to bloom in full, it is due to the artist and the artist only. The obsession, the time, the raw talent needed to truly create art is an incredible business, requiring huge investment in energy, time, and effort. It is a matter of the most basic, and one would have hoped self-evident, principle that the person who sacrificed so much to bring forth a piece of art should retain all the rights to it and in particular have the right to profit from it. [1] To argue otherwise would be to condone outright theft. The ethereal work of the artist is every bit as real as the hard work of a machine. Mandating that all forms of art be released under a creative commons license is an absolute slap in the face to artists and to the artistic endeavour as a whole. It implies that somehow the work is not entirely the artist’s own, that because it is art it is somehow so different as to be worthy of being shunted into the public sphere without the real consent of the artist. This is a gross robbing of the artist’s right over his or her own work. If property rights are to have any meaning, they must have a universal protection. This policy represents a fundamental erosion of the right to property, and attacks one sector of productive life that is essential for the giving of colour to the human experience. This policy serves only to devalue that contribution. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ascidfakhba-con01a",
"rank": 26,
"score": 102695
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy. [1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ascidfakhba-con03a",
"rank": 27,
"score": 102603
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-economy-befhwimsc-pro05b",
"rank": 28,
"score": 101506
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Traditional and religious beliefs More than 90% of Uganda’s population believe that homosexuality is not part of their culture and should never be accepted[1], its seen as indecency, criminality and a taboo in the community. This is something the government did not invent and not something it can simply wash out of society. Shelving the bill would not suddenly create tolerance from Ugandan society towards the gay community but instead would isolate and impose a threat to the LGBT community. Others would have tried to create laws anti-gay laws. This ‘kill the Gays bill’ was originally intended to include the death penalty for some homosexual acts such as when one of the participants is a minor, HIV-positive, disabled or a \"serial offender\".[2] The bill is therefore considerably better than what the alternative could have been – the government has done its duty and moderated it. Any wider change to the culture of the country is not the duty of the government. [1] Patience Akumu, ‘It pains me to live in a country, Uganda, that hates gay people and 'indecent' women’, thegurdian.com, 22 December 2013, [2] BBC News, ‘Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill: MPs drop death penalty’, 23 November 2012,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-international-alhrpsgmhb-con02a",
"rank": 29,
"score": 101203
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes. Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire. 1 Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con03a",
"rank": 30,
"score": 101197
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Chilling effects of excessive cultural sensitivity Art should be given a great deal of license. Many European and American media and art outlets create art or journalistic pieces that are offensive to or poorly received by Christians and Jews, or other minorities. By limiting discourse in the form of art, we risk not only unjustly suppressing the artists’ vision, but also cheapening and the artistic community and rendering it more homogenous. Satire has been used with extreme effectiveness in making political statements before, and this was no exception. The cartoons express the cartoonists’ own views and beliefs, and the newspaper was simply providing a medium, not dictating what they should draw.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-mrrtdnsnhpc-con02a",
"rank": 31,
"score": 101141
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Artists often rely on copyright protection to financially support themselves and their families Artists as they are often not paid for anything else may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists often rely wholly on their ability to sell and profit from their work. This policy serves to drain them of that potential revenue, as their work is shunted into creative commons, and available to all. Artists often also have families to support, and putting the added financial burden on them of stripping them of their copyright only serves to further those problems as they exist. A robust system of copyright is a much better protection to struggling and successful artists alike who like all talented individuals seek to assuage their material wants. Artists cannot live on appreciation alone. With much less secure copyright many would have to find other work.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ascidfakhba-con04a",
"rank": 32,
"score": 101001
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Content: Classification, not censorship We should expect fans of an art form that is subjected to public criticism and vilification to leap to its defence. Some of these aficionados- whether the medium in question is cinema, fine art or pop music- make the case for the value of their favourite mode of expression by overstating its positive effects. Hip hop has long been the focus of controversies surrounding violent music. Hip hop is closely associated with low-level criminality, as noted above. A number of highly successful hip hop artists have been attacked or killed as a result of feuds within the industry and links between managers, promoters and criminal gangs. As the academic John McWhorter has pointed out in numerous [1] publications [2] , the positive political and social impact of rap music has been massively overstated, as a result of highly charged media coverage of hip hop-linked violence. As a result, attempts to address some of the hips hops most objectionable content- lyrics that are misogynist and blankly and uncritically violent- have been condemned as unjust assaults on the right to free expression. Attacks on negative content in hip hop have been made all the more emotive, because they appear to be an attempt to restrict the speech of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities. Side proposition agrees with McWhorter that listening to music that contains violent themes will not, in the absence of other factors, cause individuals to behave in a violent way. However, the content of rap, and its strong links with the youngest inhabitants of marginalised, stigmatised urban areas mean that it damages the developmental opportunities of teenagers and young people, and harms others’ perceptions of the communities they live in. Hip hop trades on its authenticity – the extent to which it faithfully portrays the lived experience of the inhabitants of deprived inner city areas. The greater the veracity of a hip hop track, the greater its popularity and cache among fans. Musicians have gained public recognition as a result of being directly involved in street crime and gang activities. 50 Cent, a high profile “gansta” artist owes his popularity, in part, to a shooting in 2000 that left him with 9 bullet wounds [3] . This supposed link to reality is the most dangerous aspect of contemporary hip hop culture. Unlike the simplistic make-believe of, say, action films, the “experiences” related by rappers are also their public personas and become the rationale for their success. Rap, through materialist boasting and sexualised music videos tells vulnerable young men and women from isolated neighbourhoods that their problems can be solved by adopting similarly nihilistic personas. The poverty that affects many of the communities that hip hop artists identify with does more than separate individuals from economic opportunity. It also confines the inhabitants of these communities geographically, politically and culturally. It prevents young men and women from becoming aware of perspectives on the world and society that run contrary to the violence of main stream rap. With television dominated by the gangsta motif, marginalised youngsters are left with little in the way of dissenting voices to convince them that hip hop takes a subjective and commercialised approach to the lives and communities that rappers claim to represent. In effect, controversial hip hop is capable of sponsoring violent behaviour, when it is marketed as an accurate portrayal of relationships, values and principles. Under these circumstances, adolescents, whose own identity is nascent and malleable can easily be misled into emulating the exploits and attitudes of rappers [4] . Side proposition advocates the control and classification of controversial forms of music, including but not limited to hip hop. Consistent with principles 1 and 10, classification of this type will follow similar schemes applied to movies and videogames. Assessments of the content of music will be conducted by a politically independent organisation; musicians and record companies will have the ability to appeal the decisions of this body. Crucially, the “ban” on music containing violent lyrics will take the form of a categorisation scheme. Content will not be blocked from sale or censored. Instead, as with the sale of pornographic material in many liberal democratic states, music found to contain especially violent lyrics will be confined to closed off areas in shops, to which only adults (as defined in law) will be admitted. Its performance on television, radio and in cinemas will be banned. Live performances of restricted music will be obliged to enforce strict age monitoring policies. Online distributors of music will be compelled to comply with similar age restrictions and intentionally exposing minors to violent music will be punishable under child protection laws. This approach has the advantage of limiting access to violent content only to consumers who are judged, in general, to be mature enough to understand that its “message” and the posturing of singers does not equate to permission to engage in deviant behaviour. [1] McWhorter, J. “How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back.” City Journal, Summer 2003. The Manhattan Institute. [2] McWhorter, J. “All about the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can’t Save Black America.” [3] “What’s In a name?” The Economist, 24 November 2005. [4] Bindel, J. “Who you calling bitch, ho?” Mail & Guardian online, 08 February 2008.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-pro01a",
"rank": 33,
"score": 100995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Citizens of western liberal democracies should never be required to adhere to religious norms that they do not hold There is no right not to be offended. It is one thing to show a religion respect. One respects Islam by removing shoes when visiting a mosque. However, following the taboos of a particular religion in public society does not constitute respect, but submission, and adherence to the principles of that religion, which is never required. The nature of a democratic society is that there will sometimes be disagreements about how individuals should act; insofar as Denmark has not democratically come to the conclusion that it would be better for it to be illegal to depict the prophet Mohammed in publications, it is permitted and that right must hold. [i] [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-mrrtdnsnhpc-con03a",
"rank": 34,
"score": 99599
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Blasphemy is comparable to legislation banning hate speech Not only can remarks or images be labelled as inappropriate but, in extreme cases governments ban organisations, meeting and demonstrations. Where speech is deemed to be prejudiced or inflammatory the state intervenes to prevent either offence or possible violence. In all of the situations covered by blasphemy laws, the first of those would apply and, as has been seen on so many occasions, the latter is not uncommon. The experience of the “Anti-Islam video” prompted civil unrest around the world [i] costing nations money in terms of lost work and increased police time. Both governments and individuals have the right to be protected against such outpourings of outrage. It seems only sensible for governments to prevent such difficulties where they can. In this light a legislative code that bans blasphemy is useful in the maintenance of social order and cohesion in many countries. It is a given in most countries that the government has a duty to protect citizens against statements or actions that they have a reasonable basis for believing are likely to cause social unrest. Blasphemy is just another example on that list. [i] Al Jazeera. Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video. 21 September 2012.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-free-speech-debate-nshbbhnpsb-con02a",
"rank": 35,
"score": 98575
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable Banning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage. Appearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands. This ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people. [1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011, [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con04a",
"rank": 36,
"score": 98526
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or \"chavs.\" This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns. 1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con01b",
"rank": 37,
"score": 98456
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or \"chavs.\" This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns. 1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con01b",
"rank": 38,
"score": 98456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Although we want to protect freedom of religion, it is not as fundamental as other rights. When two rights clash, we have to decide which should take precedence – for example, your freedom of action is limited by my right not to be punched in the face. Further, we will normally resolve clashes so as to first stop physical harm, followed by emotional or other harm. Freedom of religion, though important, comes further down the list. In this case, the more “fundamental” of the rights in play is the right of the animal to be protected from unnecessary pain. It is more closely linked to reducing suffering, which an appropriate goal for society. So in this particular case, we should put the animals first.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con01b",
"rank": 39,
"score": 98098
},
{
"content": "Title: sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes Content: Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church. Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. \"Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history.\" Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-international-ssiarcmhb-pro01a",
"rank": 40,
"score": 97146
},
{
"content": "Title: political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be Content: Not all attention that follows terrorism is positive. After the 9/11 attacks, aid workers in Afghanistan were forced to cut off food supplies in the country, even though 7 to 8 million civilians were dependent on them. [1] The kind of terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the violent ones, and they are likely to be met with reactions of disgust and grief. This means that the international community is less likely to sympathize with their cause, which results in less support. [1] Chomsky, N. (2001, October 18). Terrorism Works. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Media Monitors Network:",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-pro03b",
"rank": 41,
"score": 97140
},
{
"content": "Title: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Content: Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case. Proposition may well argue that televising court cases gains a sense of ‘sympathy’ and justice for the victims of the case. However, this is double-edged. Firstly, particularly emotive and controversial court cases concerning crimes such as sexual assault could blind the public (or ‘audience’) to any untruthfulness from the ‘victim’, by virtue of being perceived as vulnerable and wronged. Secondly, any sympathy which is gained for one person often arises out of increased hatred or outrage against another – namely the defendant. This could lead to public condemnation of an individual who is never actually convicted of a crime; they will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. One example of this is when Milly Dowler’s father was questioned in court as a suspect of his daughter’s death and his personal, pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Although he was completely innocent, the prosecution’s job was to explore any possibility of perversion or dangerous character. This is an infringement upon that individual’s rights, as being publicly portrayed as a villain could go on to affect their future private life, such as their chances of future employment or anonymity. [1] , accessed 19/08/11",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-law-lghwpcctcc-con02a",
"rank": 42,
"score": 96520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Social cohesion and hate speech Laws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies. The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 argued “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights.” (United Nations General Assembly, ‘Combating defamation of religions’, 2006). Coexistence between communities with radically different creeds, values and viewpoints needs to be carefully supervised in multi-cultural societies. Too often the uncertainty that accompanies migrant life can serve to inspire to give too much credence to the views of zealots and fundamentalists. To prevent communities deliberately isolating themselves from their neighbours; to prevent communal violence, it is necessary for the state to create an environment in which disputes can be resolved by impartial and properly trained prosecutorial authorities. Discrimination laws are instrumental to building peaceful social realities. They signify a welcoming society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious. Blasphemous statements have a power that reaches far beyond “ordinary” hate speech. Acts covered by this law would include intentionally provocative publications such as the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that featured prominently in a Danish newspaper in 2005. These images led to widespread protests and violence in both western states and majority Muslim countries. The offensive content of the cartoons gave credence and legitimacy to sects and clerics espousing absolutist ideas that have no space for compromise or understanding. Further, the protests also brought individuals who would ordinarily have considered themselves moderates into contact with violent extremists. Neither of these outcomes does anything to promote a culture of free and frank discussion within the societies affected. The legal measures that side proposition supports do not oblige free thinkers to remain silent in the face of zealotry and bigotry. However, they does require writers, journalists and artists to apply their reason and their sense to content that they want to publish for mass consumption. Much like laws that prevent the negligent operation of businesses, anti-blasphemy laws would set a minimal standard of responsible conduct in order to ensure that publications did not cause a dangerous level of offense to significant numbers ordinary and rational religious believers. Legal definitions and enforcement of standards of responsibility do not preclude individuals from pursuing dangerous or entrepreneurial business ventures or public works. They need not prevent the creation of controversial and challenging forms of free expression either.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-pro02a",
"rank": 43,
"score": 96092
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising Content: Although business has a compelling self interest to make a profit and advertising is integral to that endeavour, business does not necessarily sacrifice its profit when curbing sexist advertising. If messages are harmonizing with social attitudes, then advertising which appeals to the greater good of gender equality does not necessarily harm but could enhance business credibility. The Benneton ads have often embraced a social consciousness to promote the public good while making a profit. The affirmative has acknowledged that for advertising to be effective they have to connect to values held within the community. As more awareness develops about the negative influence of sexist advertising, business is likely to benefit from the banning of sexist ads.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con01b",
"rank": 44,
"score": 94356
},
{
"content": "Title: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations Content: North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct \"any launch using ballistic missile technology\" and urges it to \"suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme\"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms. It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2] [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-oapdhwinkp-con01a",
"rank": 45,
"score": 93954
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising Content: Even though some businesses have responded to public opinion, there are sufficient international commitments which address gender inequality in all societies. The Universal Declaration of Human rights and subsequent conventions have acknowledged the overwhelming need to set policies and practices into motion which deal with the rights of women and children. Waiting upon the private sector to respond to needed changes in social attitudes which demean certain groups of citizens, is to slow, too inefficient, and until actions are taken does not solve the inherent problems we have discussed. Eating disorders, diminished self images, and the promotion of women as sexual objects has immediate harms for women and influences the socialization of children. Men as well suffer from stereotypes about attractiveness, body images, and sexuality. Therefore problems created from sexist advertising need to be addressed now rather than around the hope that business fuelled by its concern for profit will take appropriate action to create and design ads that avoid sexist advertising. Advertising campaigns need to be planned with standards in mind not simply wait for public response when ads have be found offensive. The California Mild board example you provide illustrates this after-the-fact approach.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con03b",
"rank": 46,
"score": 93616
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con03b",
"rank": 47,
"score": 93514
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things. Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols. 1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con03a",
"rank": 48,
"score": 93480
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whatever value the expression of hate speech has can be discussed in classrooms where the ideas can be discussed in their social context rather than promulgated from a platform. Banning hate speech will not transform universities into factories of rote learning or crush a progressive atmosphere. Hate speech isn’t about affirming rights, it is about limiting rights. There is no analogy here to the feminist or gay rights movements.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-law-aullgsmhwchs-con02b",
"rank": 49,
"score": 93358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Parents often know nothing (or worse, are armed with dangerously naive delusions) of the sexual state of their children. The picture painted by abolitionists is inaccurate – the process of deciding what is taught in schools involves parents’ groups and school governing bodies on a school-by-school basis, so parents do have a role in deciding what is taught. But ultimately, the state should be involved in educating the whole child, not just in doling out academic ideas – and should work hard to safeguard sexual health of youngsters, a field near-impossible to separate from sex education. This is a subject just as important for the development of young people as the conventional subjects such as maths and English. The role of ‘teacher’ has to change with time. Once, teachers only instructed the children of the well-off or acted as a branch of the church, now they teach everyone in a secular society. As their role changes, they must remain responsible and obey the law: thus, the scaremongering of suggesting teachers will abuse their students or lure them into relationships is irrelevant, as both sides believe that is wrong, and should be prosecuted. Rules banning discussions of sex in schools can deny teachers the ability to deal with real problems. When an individual student comes to a teacher with a problem, a rule against discussing such things in the classroom will probably mean that this outlet of help the troubled adolescent has sought out, often because he feels the family isn’t the place to get help, will be denied to him, will turn its back on him. Like it or not, in today’s fractured society teachers have taken on the role of counsellor, and this rule will indirectly curtail their ability to fulfil it. The result of that will be appalling.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-con03b",
"rank": 50,
"score": 92903
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some journalists and media outlets are despicable in the way they treat people. Preying upon victims and their families is absolutely wrong, but a ban is not the way to solve this problem as it would simply move the media frenzy to whenever the ban on a case is removed and the details become public. Instead better regulation of the press is needed in such emotional cases in order to make sure that the media is respectful of families and also to make sure that those accused are seen to be innocent until proven guilty.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-law-umlcphwrmrvc-pro03b",
"rank": 51,
"score": 92613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no respect among the population for ASBOS Newspapers are full of examples of absurd ASBOs. They make an ass of the law and show that the nanny state is overreaching. People trying to kill themselves really aren’t going to be put off by the prospect of breaching their ASBO. [1] Other examples include a prostitute who was prohibited from carrying condoms in an area that included her drug clinic, a prohibition on mobile soup vans that fed the homeless and a deaf girl who was banned from spitting in public. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Suicide woman banned from river’, 25 February 2005, [2] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-law-cplgpsyhwsas-pro04a",
"rank": 52,
"score": 92582
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising Content: It is true that individuals do have the right to consume media and have some power over how they perceive and respond to media. However, since the nature of advertising is always planned for public consumption, then ads contribute to existing attitudes inside a person. When slaves in the U.S. were marketed and sold according to the content of advertising, a social system was being perpetrated. When the injustices of slavery were acknowledged both the business and the marketing of slaves ceased to exist. When the greater social good of justice is held over individual choice, social good should prevail. Advertising which demeans the value of certain groups of citizens is not appropriate for the public marketplace. Although Individual choice and freedom of choice are to be valued, public messages by the nature of their public audience, must serve the greater society. Pornography in the public airways is often regulated and banned because it is seen as potentially harmful to women and children of a society. Due to the public nature of advertising then, the greater society has a more important right than that of individuals.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con04b",
"rank": 53,
"score": 92120
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example [i] . We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die when an available remedy could save their life. [i] Sue Reid. \"Britain's voodoo killers: This week a minister warned of a wave of child abuse and killings linked to witchcraft. Alarmist? This investigation suggests otherwise.\" Daily Mail , 17 August 2012.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro02a",
"rank": 54,
"score": 91925
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wikipedia threatens the academic enterprise. If Wikipedia is taken to be an accurate resource, then the academic expertise is threatened because anyone can produce “correct” knowledge. Though academics can continue to participate in this work, they are not essential. Normal, ordinary people can do as good a job. Not only does relying on Wikipedia (incorrectly) make academics seem unnecessary, it proliferates the misinformation that academic work seeks to combat. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students never develop proper research skills and come to believe that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] Free, open access to huge swathes of information is a threat to both good research and the teaching of good research-writing skills. [2] Middlebury College’s history department even felt so strongly about Wikipedia’s negative influence that in 2007 it banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers. [3] [1] Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75. [2] McClure, R. (2011.) Googlepedia: Turning information behavior into research skills. In Vol. 2 of Writing spaces: Readings on writing, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky, 221–41. Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. [3] Jaschik, Scott. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-con05a",
"rank": 55,
"score": 91850
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age. As well as condemning those who practice other faiths, or who choose to follow no faith, they have fought, and continued to fight, the expansion of the rights of women and of socially marginalised castes, among other social groups. All of the major churches and sects have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and most of them are still desperately trying to ignore the existence of modernity. While justifying their political and moral positions through obtuse and deliberately obscure interpretations of religious texts, obscure texts even the mainstream interpretations of major religions are usually sexist, frequently racist and almost universally homophobic. Preventing access to contraception is the single largest block to women getting out of poverty. There are many other examples of the excesses and double standards of mainstream religion – too many examples to pick one.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-pro01a",
"rank": 56,
"score": 91634
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Content: Pornography liberates women Pornography is massively produced and distributed: this provides women with a vast platform through which to define their sexual identity. This has been a great tool in the past: in the 1920’s America, the flapper became a great role model for women by promoting revolutionary values of a strong, sexual woman: she danced wildly in jazz clubs, was openly lesbian, and sexually active. This image spread throughout the country thanks to the boom of the film industry in the Roaring Twenties (Rosenberg). [1] Now pornography plays, or at least can play, this same role. Pornography breaks the taboo of sexuality for women, and promoting the continuation of taboos is a label and a stereotype which the feminist movement must oppose. Instead, it should use pornography to spread its values. There is nothing intrinsic about pornography that makes it anti-women. There is female-friendly pornography, and in fact there are Feminist Porn Awards granted every year since 2006 (Techmedia Network). [2] There is also homosexual porn and porn that presents women as dominant: this can empower women and break current stereotypes, not only that women are not sexual, but that women in general cannot be powerful in society. The feminist movement should seek to promote this flow of ideas of what gender can be and allow women to influence the way their sexuality is perceived by men. [1] Rosenberg, Jennifer. Flappers in the Roaring Twenties. About.com, [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con02a",
"rank": 57,
"score": 91491
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Blasphemy laws are unlikely to promote social harmony as readily as the proposition side claims they will. Accusations of blasphemy can enflame tensions between antagonistic groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. Communities with diverging beliefs are unlikely to engage in discussion and negotiation if statements aimed at promoting peace can easily be used to launch expensive libel prosecutions. Exchanges and debates between different communities will not take place if participants fear that they might be arrested if an audience member choses to take offence at their words. Anti-blasphemy laws would undoubtedly control group violence of the sort that followed the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons”. But they would also spur further social division, and deepen misunderstandings about religion. Anti-blasphemy laws would remove debate on religion from the public sphere and leave both bigots and zealots to propagate their distorted interpretations of religious belief unchallenged in private. To the case more simply, debate and discussion on the nature of religion and the nature of the sacred will always occur. Even if the proposition side successfully extend hate speech laws to encompass blasphemy, they will not be able to prevent private discussion these concepts without abolishing democracy wholesale and advocating the creation of a surveillance state. A blasphemy law would only serve to prevent groups with differing ideas from being brought together to engage in debate and conversation. Contact between groups would cease, because of concerns that allegations of blasphemy might lead, at the very least, to unwelcome and intrusive police and prosecutorial investigations. But discussion of controversial ideas about other faiths would continue. In the absence of dissenting voices, closed and concealed dialog would be vulnerable to manipulation and inaccuracies. While words can be powerful it is preferable to allow people to speak freely, even if what is said is not always constructive. The alternative is to make the courts and justice system complicit in creating a culture of victimhood and vexatious litigation. Debate is also likely to suffer under this mechanism. By allowing a group that has been the target of a religious slur to feel victimised and justified in deploying the force of law against their opponents, we disincentivise these same religions from engaging with blasphemers and offering clear and robust justifications for the offence they feel. The argument that blasphemy laws would bring different parts of society together is nonsense; firstly such laws tend to favour the largest religion in a society which would be to the detriment of minorities but also just because certain discourse is blocked does not mean that individuals will inherently become more educated about other cultures and beliefs. This is the case for example in Pakistan where minorities are rarely protected by blasphemy laws and are often persecuted by it, buts being a member of the Ahmadi sect is synonymous with being blasphemous to Islam and without having to prove intent the law is therefore used to persecute them and other minorities. (Mehmood, ‘Pakistan blasphemy laws retake center stage’, 2011)",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-pro02b",
"rank": 58,
"score": 91326
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Marriage is an important institution to religious people Nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-religion-msfhbmoi-con04a",
"rank": 59,
"score": 91126
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority. 1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con03b",
"rank": 60,
"score": 90721
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: 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",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con03b",
"rank": 61,
"score": 90466
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: 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",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con03b",
"rank": 62,
"score": 90466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Artists generally desire to create, and will do so whether there is financial incentive or not. Besides, many artists live and die in relative poverty, [1] yet their experience seems to not have put off people from pursuing art as a profession and passion. The loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world. [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-con04b",
"rank": 63,
"score": 90286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The part of the Book of Leviticus which sentences homosexuals to death also: permits polygamy, bans tattoos, prohibits eating meat that isn’t well-cooked, prohibits eating rabbits, pigs or some forms of seafood, and prohibits the wearing of clothes made of blended textiles (such as polyester). Most Christians accept that parts of the Bible were written according to the out-dated social opinions of the time and can be taken lightly. The only New Testament comments about homosexuality come from the moralising apostle Paul; there is nothing directly from Jesus, in the Gospels themselves.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-religion-chwccaogalp-con01b",
"rank": 64,
"score": 90191
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: Homophobia should indeed be confronted but penalising it is not the solution – just as it wasn’t for racism and sexism. These views should be confronted and challenged, which doesn’t happen by banning their expression. Indeed using legislation in this way is more likely to make the homophobe feel justified. Freedom of speech and equality have generally worked hand in hand and will do so in the case of homophobia as well. Banning ideas doesn’t threaten bigotry; indeed historically it has tended to be the tool of the bigot, not the liberal.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro03b",
"rank": 65,
"score": 90136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex y the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down. Liberal principles of privacy and autonomy allow individuals to engage in consensual activities that may fall outside established boundaries of social acceptance. In this way individual liberty is satisfied, while the risk of others being exposed to harmful externalities is limited. In the words of the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore, “the law can only ever be a piecemeal intervention in the life of society” [i] . The prosecution of a large and organized community of sadomasochistic homosexual men in the English criminal case of R v Brown was in part motivated by the distribution of video footage of their activities [ii] . Doubts were also raised at trial as to whether or not some of the relationships within the group were entirely free of coercion. Their activities had become too public, and the bond of consent between the sadistic and masochistic partners too attenuated for the group to remain concealed. Individuals break the law, in minor and significant ways, all the time. Due to the legal protection of private life, due to an absence of coercion, due to a consensual relationship between a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, such breaches go entirely undetected. The general right to privacy balances out the obligation placed on the state to ensure that individuals who encounter abuse and exploitation within sadomasochistic relationships can be protected. The protection afforded by privacy incentivizes individuals engaged in S&M activities to ensure that they follow the highest standards of safety and caution. Arguably, where “victims” have consented to being injured, but have then been forced to seek medical treatment due to their partner’s incompetence or lack of restraint, complaints to the police by doctors and nurses have helped to identify and halt reckless, negligent or dangerous sadomasochistic behavior. Correctly and safely conducted, a sadomasochistic relationship need never enter the public domain, and need never be at risk of prosecution. However, without the existence of legal sanctions the state will have no power to intervene in high-risk or coercive S&M partnerships. [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006 [ii] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-law-tllgrhwds-con04a",
"rank": 66,
"score": 89369
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women. Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination. 1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro01a",
"rank": 67,
"score": 89329
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others, maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause. 1 'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010 , accessed on 25th July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con02b",
"rank": 68,
"score": 89227
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others, maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause. 1 'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010 , accessed on 25th July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con02b",
"rank": 69,
"score": 89227
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects. Typically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive. 1 Robert Smith, “Lack of loss-leader sales good news for brand conscious wine industry,”National Business Review (New Zealand), June 19, 2009",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-economy-beghwprsci-pro02a",
"rank": 70,
"score": 89182
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Very few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage. By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-pro01b",
"rank": 71,
"score": 89125
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b",
"rank": 72,
"score": 88851
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Prohibition of a subject damages discourse and free enquiry History is not something that it is worth sacrificing freedom of speech and expression for. Every individual should be free to voice their own views and this includes on areas that are important to the state such as its formation and national heros. In these areas there can be no compelling reason for keeping secrets or discouraging open inquiry and scholarship, there are no national security interests at stake, for most countries the individuals involved are dead. Therefore the only thing being affected are individuals posthumous reputations and the state should not be protecting individuals reputations. Someone’s reputation should stand on all of their deeds and acts based upon fact not just a cherry picked and idealised image set forth by the state. The foundation of Islam is potentially an example of this. Some scholars such as Tom Holland have attempted to show that the Arab Empire gave birth to Islam rather than the other way around as it is traditionally understood. [1] Possible revisions of the early history of Islam are extremely controversial but in light of the conflicts in the Middle East and what is sometimes described as a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam it is important that the period be studied. [2] Holland suggests that the Prophet may have been much more influenced by Christianity and Judaism than is recognised by Islam; [3] if there were such links might unearthing them not help to heal divides today? [1] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012, p.40 (ftnote 53) [2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations, The Free Press 2002, pp.209-218 [3] Holland, p.49 (ftnote74)",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-free-speech-debate-efsdfkhwsds-pro02a",
"rank": 73,
"score": 88519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While most of the population may not be enraged enough by censorship to attempt to get around it this does not mean they would not benefit from having the capability to do so. Governments often intrude into social discussion, music and even games by banning them and taking down discussions. These people would be much freer if they had complete freedom of choice rather than a government controlled set of boundaries on the internet.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-con03b",
"rank": 74,
"score": 88389
},
{
"content": "Title: reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained Content: While public art is valuable, it can serve a purpose to educate and send a message, influencing discourse. Criticism of a political figure, when expressed via an art form, can change perceptions of that figure, particularly when their policy is under scrutiny. However, the image portrayed in ‘The Spear’ does not do these things. It does not focus on the policies of President Zuma, but rather relies on innuendo surrounding the President’s personal life, graphically represented by Zuma’s exposed penis, which is a prominent feature of the painting. While artists have a right to criticise those in authority and galleries have a right to display any art it wants, such rights are balanced by responsibilities over how such artists conduct themselves when they choose to enter political discourse. A provocative image such as ‘The Spear’ flouts those responsibilities by relying upon graphic innuendo instead of policy criticism to get the point across. This is damaging for a number of reasons specific to the South African context which will be explained in the Opposition Arguments.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-radhbsshr-pro01b",
"rank": 75,
"score": 87988
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people. Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live. 1 at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con01a",
"rank": 76,
"score": 87741
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are many in Africa who believe that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and view the act as unnatural. Religious groups in particular oppose male homosexuality due to sodomy being viewed a sin [1] . If a certain act is viewed as a sin, and it is optional, then it is only logical that this activity should be prohibited under law. In a sense, it is moral to have laws restricting homosexuality in place via this logic. [2] The U.S. and other Western states should not condemn African states and reduce aid for legislating in a way they consider moral. [1] Islam and Africa ‘Islam and Homosexuality’ [2] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-health-ssiahrgmhwc-pro01b",
"rank": 77,
"score": 87695
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Few artists ever see much profit from their work anyway, many choosing the life of bohemian squalor in order to keep producing art rather than taking up more profitable pursuits. Vincent van Gogh sold almost nothing, but his drive to create never abated. No doubt the true artists will continue to feel the urge to create under this policy, and the loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ascidfakhba-con03b",
"rank": 78,
"score": 87557
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Few artists ever see much profit from their work anyway, many choosing the life of bohemian squalor in order to keep producing art rather than taking up more profitable pursuits. Vincent van Gogh sold almost nothing, but his drive to create never abated. No doubt the true artists will continue to feel the urge to create under this policy, and the loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-science-ascidfakhba-con03b",
"rank": 79,
"score": 87557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women relate to their femininity A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women – who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-thrhwbbc-con03a",
"rank": 80,
"score": 87462
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices. Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do. The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech. [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64. [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro02a",
"rank": 81,
"score": 87453
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Content: Even if achieving a fully effective ban is impossible, it is the responsibility of the feminist movement to take a stance and not condone practices that harm women in practice and promote dangerous messages. Making it illegal will limit it at least an extent, and due to all the harms pornography causes the smallest improvement is an important goal. It is an exaggeration to claim pornography would have such an effect. The reasons for banning pornography would be the same as for banning prostitution (coercion issues for the participants) and other forms of media that incite to directly offensive acts towards particularly vulnerable people. It is, rather, the actual sexual culture and view of people’s relationships promoted by pornography that leads to higher levels of rape and harassment.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con03b",
"rank": 82,
"score": 86972
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Content: It is usually the task of movie classification organisations such as the MPAA and the British Board of Film Certification to judge whether the content of a film should be cut or altered. In most cases these groups will be politically independent, but may be politically appointed. They will make the decision to cut content based partly on the criteria described above. A movie will only be censored if it contains shocking or offensive images used in a way that suggests that violence is glamorous, entertaining or without consequences. There is a broad consensus in western liberal democracies on what constitutes a highly shocking or offensive image. For example, in even the most permissive societies, open and public images of sexual intercourse would be considered problematic. Similarly, graphic depictions of violence against vulnerable individuals would be open to wide condemnation. The thing that unifies each of these categories of image is that they can be easily understood and interpreted by the majority of people. Even a casual observer can understand that pornography is pornography. This is part of the reason why some states try to control extreme images – because they are both powerful and emotive, and easy to produce, display and distribute. However, music and lyrics are different from images. Language contains a degree of abstraction, depth and nuance that only the most unconventional (and non-commercial) film could replicate. This is problematic, because it is much harder for censors and members of the general public to agree on an exact definition of an offensive statement or form of words. Complex legal processes are used to determine whether or not offensive statements are sufficiently offensive to be classed as hate crimes. Even more complex are the legal procedures used to determine when an individual’s reputation has been damaged by allegations published in books or periodicals. It will be much harder for ratings or certification boards to decide when a particular song is violent or offensive due to the range of meanings and ambiguities that are built into language. For example, the verse “Got a temper nigga, go ahead, lose your head/ turn your back on me, get clapped and lose your legs/ I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder/ ‘til I bust a clip in your face, pussy, this beef ain’t over,” can either be seen as a series of boastful threats, delivered directly by the musician, but it could also be reported speech – a lot of hip hop music is based on narratives or performer’s accounts of past events. It could also be intended to invite condemnation of the behaviour of the character that the speaker has assumed. Hip hop artists frequently use alternative personas and “casts” of characters to add depth to the narrative dimension of their tracks. Under these circumstances, the process of classifying and censoring potentially violent lyrics is likely to become laborious. More important than the expense that this process will entail is the possibility that the chilling effect of a prolonged classification process will cause music publishers to stop promoting hip hop, metal and other genres linked with violent imagery. Lack of funds will curtail innovation and diversity in these genres.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwbmclg-pro02b",
"rank": 83,
"score": 86970
},
{
"content": "Title: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Content: Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society. Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government [1] , have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham [2] . Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage [3] , which resulted in the destruction of property [4] , physical violence towards others [5] , and even the deaths of three young men [6] . These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands [7] . To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring. [1] AsiaNews.it, ‘Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam’, 22 June 2010, 09/09/11 [2] BBC News, ‘England Riots’, 8 February 2012, on 09/09/11 [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, on 09/09/11 [4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, ‘UK riots could cost taxpayer £100m’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011, on 09/09/11. [5] Allen, Emily, ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’, Mail Online, 11 August 2011, on 09/09/11. [6] Orr, James, ‘Birmingham riots: three men killed ‘protecting homes’’, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011, on 09/09/11. [7] Huffington Post, ‘UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?’, 10 August 2011, on 09/09/11.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-science-ciidfaihwc-pro03a",
"rank": 84,
"score": 86753
},
{
"content": "Title: media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising Content: Sexist advertising is subjective so would be too difficult to codify. Effective advertising appeals to the social, cultural, and personal values of consumers. Through the connection of values to products, services and ideas, advertising is able to accomplish its goal of adoption. Failure to make meaningful appeals to audience members seriously diminishes the outcomes of marketing. Since differing beliefs about beauty, body types, sexuality, and gender roles exist across societies and cultures, universal definitions of sexist advertising are too difficult to determine. As an example, biological differences exist between women and what may be considered excessively thin in one society may not be so in another. Any type of censoring calls into questions such as who will censor and how will such censorship be applied. The development of standards could favour cultural imperialism. Therefore, sexist advertising is too difficult to codify.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-mmctghwbsa-con02a",
"rank": 85,
"score": 86185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Overlong copyright protection stifles the creativity and saps the time of artists In some instances, when artists achieve success they face the enervating impulse that their achievement brings. They become satisfied and complacent with what they have, robbing them of their demiurgic drive. Worse, and more frequently, successful artists become embroiled in defending their work from pirates, downloaders, and other denizens of the internet. The result is artists wasting time in court, fighting lawsuits that sap them of time to actually focus on creating new works. Artists should be incentivized to look forward, not spend their time clinging to what they have already made. Obviously, they have a right to profit from their work to an extent, which is why a certain, reduced length of copyright is still important. But clearly the current length is far too great as artists retain their copyright until their death and many years after. Moreover once the artist has died it is difficult to see how copyright can be considered to be enhancing or even rewarding creativity; it simply becomes a negative weight on others creativity.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-pro01a",
"rank": 86,
"score": 86117
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose. It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose. However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them. Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t. The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con01b",
"rank": 87,
"score": 85919
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This ban will alienate non-democracies from discourse and stifle reform efforts When a state is declared illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the international community, its natural reaction is one of upset and anger. A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies would be seen as a brutal slap in the face to many regimes that consider themselves, and are often considered by their people, to be the legitimate government of their country. The ban will result in further tension between non-democracies and democracies, breaking down communication channels. Democracies are best able to effect change in regimes when they seek to engage them constructively, to galvanize them to make gradual connections to the development of civil society and to loosen restrictions on freedoms, such as reducing domestic spying. The ban makes it clear that the ultimate aim of democracies is to effectively overthrow the existing governments of non-democracies in favour of systems more like their own. The outcome of this conclusion is far less willingness on the part of these regimes to discuss reform, and makes it more likely that they will demonize pro-democracy activists within their borders as agents of foreign powers seeking to subvert and conquer them. This particular narrative has been used to great effect by many regimes throughout history, including North Korea and Zimbabwe, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa for example denounced a travel and arms sales ban as attempting to “undermine the inclusive government”. [1] By treating non-democracies as responsible actors democracies do much more in effectively furthering their own aims. [1] BBC News, “Zimbabwean minister denounces EU”, 14 September 2009,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-free-speech-debate-ifcidffe-con03a",
"rank": 88,
"score": 85886
},
{
"content": "Title: crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more Content: A sanction should not merely be helpful – it should treat the offending conduct as wrong. The purpose of punishment is to show disapproval for the offender’s wrongdoing, and to clearly condemn his criminal actions. This is what was and is being done with the offenders of the August riots, the most common example is of an the two men who attempted to organise riots using Facebook, both were sentenced to four years and shows societies disgust in the events of the riots and acts as a message for future. [1] A prison sentence is as much a punishment for the offender as a symbol of the reaction of society. Society creates law as an expression of the type of society we are aiming to create. This is why we punish; we punish to censure (retribution), we do not punish merely to help a person change for the better (rehabilitation). We still have to punish a robber or a murderer, even if he is truly sorry and even if he would really, really never offend again and even if we could somehow tell that for certain. This is because justice, and not rehabilitation, makes sense as the justification for punishment. Why is justice and censure (‘retribution’) so important? Because unless the criminal justice system responds to persons who have violated society’s rules by communicating, through punishment, the censure of that offending conduct, the system will fail to show society that it takes its own rules (and the breach of them) seriously. There are other important reasons as well: such as to convey to victims the acknowledgement that they have been wronged. Punishment, in other words, may be justified by the aim of achieving ‘justice’ and ‘desert’, and not by the aim of rehabilitation. [1] Bowcott, Owen, Haroon Siddique and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Facebook cases trigger criticism of ‘disproportionate’ riot sentences’, guardian.co.uk, 17 August 2011 .",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-law-cppshbcjsfm-pro01b",
"rank": 89,
"score": 85880
},
{
"content": "Title: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Content: Artists should retain the right to control their work’s interaction with the public space even if their work is publicly funded Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her that no amount of reinterpretation or external appreciation can override. How a work is used once released into the public sphere, whether expanded, revised, responded to, or simply shown without their direct consent, thus remains an active issue for the artist, because those alternative experiences are all using a piece of the artist in its efforts. Artists deserve to have that piece of them treated in a way they see as reasonable. It is a simple matter of justice that artists be permitted to maintain the level of control they desire, and it is a justice that is best furnished through the conventional copyright mechanism that provides for the maximum protection of works for their creators, and allows them to contract away uses and rights to those works on their own terms. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of copyright, not cast aside by the unwashed users of the creative commons. Samuel Beckett is a great example of this need. Beckett had exacting standards about the fashion in which in his plays could be performed. [1] For him the meaning of the art demanded an appreciation for the strict performance without the adulteration of reinterpretation. He would lack that power under this policy, meaning either the world would have been impoverished for want of his plays, or he would have been impoverished for want of his rights to his work. These rights are best balanced through the aegis of copyright as it is, not under the free-for-all of the creative commons license. [1] Catron, L. “Copyright Laws for Theatre People”. 2003.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-ascidfakhba-con02a",
"rank": 90,
"score": 85831
},
{
"content": "Title: marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries Content: It will cause resentment and make certain communities feel targeted. Arranged marriages are seen as a very important aspect of the identity of lots of Euro-Asian communities. At a time when tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims in Europe are high enough, for example there were protests in London against the film innocence of Muslims, [1] targeting a practice carried out by many Muslim families could help extremist tendencies to flare up. It is important not try and cloak laws that are little more than blind intolerance with terms that make them seem like secular liberalism. Attempting to ban practices like wearing the veil in the name of inclusion have been proven to only inflame tensions, not improve integration. [2] Banning arranged marriages outright would therefore not only be intolerant, but potentially dangerous. [1] Walker, Paul, ‘Anti-US protesters in London condemn controversial film’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012, [2] Younge, Gary, ‘Europe: Hotbed of Islampobic Extremism,’ 14 June 2012 -",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-religion-msgfhwbamec-con02a",
"rank": 91,
"score": 85795
},
{
"content": "Title: n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social Content: Teachers should always be careful about what they post and how they portray themselves on the internet, whether they are friends with their students or not. Such pictures might surface even if students don’t have direct access to them. An educator should lead by example and someone who is of dubious moral character may not be the best-suited person to teach at a school in the first place.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-science-nsihwbtiss-pro04b",
"rank": 92,
"score": 85725
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state. It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense. Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them. Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent. [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con02a",
"rank": 93,
"score": 85720
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize action on the ground. This means coordinating rallies, as well as acts of hooliganism and violence. One need only look at the sort of organization the Golden Dawn, a neo-fascist Greek party, has been able to develop in part through active use of social media and websites. [1] By capitalizing on the tools of the 21st century these thugs have succeeded in bringing sympathizers to their cause, often geographically diffuse, into a tight-knit community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens, but particularly the minority groups they are presently fixated upon. By utilizing social media and websites Holocaust deniers have gained a new lease on life. The government can significantly hamper these organizations from taking meaningful actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their favored and most effective platform. [1] Savaricas, Nathalie, “Greece’s neo-fascists are on the rise... and now they’re going into schools: How Golden Dawn is nurturing the next generation”, The Independent, 2 February 2013,",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-pro04a",
"rank": 94,
"score": 85597
},
{
"content": "Title: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Content: Western societies are secularly focused Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society. 1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro05a",
"rank": 95,
"score": 85371
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No 'slippery slope' situation exists. It would be clear that the ban only applies to music that glorifies violence. This is not a justification that could be infinitely expanded to cover more and more music and art. It could not be considered a precedent to ban music with a political message as most political messages do not promote violence. Far from stifling creativity it is likely to stimulate it. Artists would need to find new styles of music and would attempt to find ways around the ban while still keeping their music as near to its previous style as possible.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con04b",
"rank": 96,
"score": 85239
},
{
"content": "Title: media television house believes advertising harmful Content: Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-culture-mthbah-pro03b",
"rank": 97,
"score": 84883
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community. Anonymous posting means people who are made to feel ashamed of themselves, or their identities within their local communities can seek out help and/or like-minded people. For example, a gay teenager in a fiercely homophobic community could find cyber communities that are considerably more tolerant, and even face the same issues as them. This can make an enormous difference to self-acceptance, as people are no longer subjected to a singular, negative view of themselves. [1] Banning anonymous posting removes this ability. [1] ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’ Tech President. URL: ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL:",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-con02a",
"rank": 98,
"score": 84763
},
{
"content": "Title: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Content: Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro02b",
"rank": 99,
"score": 84470
},
{
"content": "Title: n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social Content: Electronic communication facilitates sexual misconduct. Social networking websites have proven to be particularly effective for child grooming by pedophiles [1] . Teachers are already in a position of power and trust in the relationship with their students. Being allowed to communicate with students via facebook would greatly facilitate misconduct by a teacher who wants to start an inappropriate relationship with a student, by giving him virtually unlimited access to the students after school. In fact, many such relationships do involve some form of electronic contact1. By banning this form of communication, the law would make it harder for teachers with bad intentions to carry them through. [1] Choo, Kim. “Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences” Australian Institute of Criminology. 2009.",
"qid": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con01a",
"docid": "test-science-nsihwbtiss-pro02a",
"rank": 100,
"score": 84367
}
] |
"Freedom of speech Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they se(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy ho(...TRUNCATED)
|
"Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing Great, social(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Co(...TRUNCATED)
|
"Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their m(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Co(...TRUNCATED)
|
"We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art Those who see the artwork, o(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Co(...TRUNCATED)
|
"The power of the visual Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ide(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Co(...TRUNCATED)
|
"Artists have a fundamental property right over their creative output Whatever the end product, be (...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: Content: Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just r(...TRUNCATED)
|
"Artists should retain the right to control their work’s interaction with the public space even if(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: Content: Control of an artistic work and its interaction in the public sphere is(...TRUNCATED)
|
"The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic out(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: Content: The promise of copyright protection galvanizes people to develop creati(...TRUNCATED)
|
"Artists often rely on copyright protection to financially support themselves and their families Ar(...TRUNCATED)
| [{"content":"Title: Content: Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and fa(...TRUNCATED)
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 9