id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: No one will ever actually look at the information If the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles. [1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely. [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
Clearly if no one ever actually looked at any information provided by surveillance then there would be no point in conducting it. Even if it were true that no one looks at any of the data being watched is still an intrusion that affects behaviour. It will affect decisions that are perfectly lawful because there will always be the slight worry that someone who you don’t want to have that information because they will think differently of you will obtain it. When the information is out of your hands you can no longer be certain who will obtain it. [1] Since people have been arrested for the information that has been conducted, clearly sometimes the information is checked and used. [1] Moore, Mica, and Stein, Bennett, ‘The Chilling Effects of License-Plate Location Tracking’, American Civil Liberties Union, 23 July 2013, |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Lack of trust The problem is that when it comes to privacy it is not really our personal physical security that we are worried about. Part of the problem is that we value our right to a private life and that we should have control over that to the extent of being able to decide how much information others know about us. To a large extent this is an issue of trust; we (sometimes wrongly) trust our friends and others with information about us. We often trust faceless entities; companies and governments too though usually to less of an extent. But a lot of that trust is as a result of their willingness to tell us what they know about us, to provide information in return, or to provide methods for us to restrict what they know. In cases like this that trust has not been earned; we were not asked, and not obviously given anything back, and there seems little change of us changing the terms of the relationship. | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
The intelligence agencies are not violating any right to privacy if they are not actually looking at the content of any emails, even less so as they in almost all cases won’t even be looking at the metadata. It is not possible for intelligence agencies to be asking the people before engaging in every surveillance policy as even knowing the broad outlines of what the surveillance involves could allow the targets of that surveillance to avoid that surveillance. While individual citizens are not asked this is where the people’s representatives should be trusted, it is ministers and members of parliament that allow surveillance and hold the agencies to account. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Loss of Privacy It is wrong to state that we only have anything to ‘fear’ if we have done something wrong; a great many people want to keep things private where what they have done is morally perfectly right and justifiable. It is perfectly justified for a married couple to want to keep a video of them having sex private – even if it is sent from one partner to the other by email, or for someone to keep his/her sexual orientation secret even if they have told someone about it. [1] If we want such information to be kept private does the state have any business picking that information up from our emails? It may not go any further than the intelligence agency, it is possible no one there will look at it but it is still an invasion of privacy. [1] Phillipson, Gavin, ‘Q&A: The right to privacy’, BBC Religion, 14 June 2013, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
Is it really an invasion of privacy if no one else knows about it even if that information is added to some giant computer database? The information we wish to keep secret remains a secret, in the unlikely event that some analyst reads the information they are never going to broadcast it to others as keeping secrets is a part of what intelligence agencies do. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The use of meta data causes unintentional harm The other possible harm is unintentional. The amount of data involved is huge and too much even for a vast organization like the NSA to actually physically look at. Instead it uses data mining. This is why the NSA wants data that may seem useless to others. The records of which phone numbers are phoning who, as the NSA was obtaining of Verizon, might seem useless but can tell them who you are contacting, and how much contact time they have. In turn they could look at who your contacts have been talking to and if it turns out that several of them talk regularly to suspected terrorists then even if you are innocent a finger of suspicion might be pointed. There has even been a study showing that individuals can be identified from just the time of call and nearest cell phone tower after just four calls. [1] PRISM gives the NSA even more ‘useless’ data to play with. The results of this data mining may usually be accurate but will not always be so and the result of being flagged like this can be problematic for individuals. It may mean additional airport security, having problems getting a visa, [2] or in the worst case finding its way onto a no fly list. [1] De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, et al., ‘Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility’, Scientific Reports, 3, 25 March 2013, [2] Brown, Ian, ‘Yes, NSA surveillance should worry the law-abiding’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories. [1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data. [2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies. [1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013, [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients ’. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies Even when the government does not intend harm there are still cases where direct harms can occur as a result of surveillance. The most worrying are where the state abuses the information it holds. Abuse of power and of the information held by government is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to trust in intelligence agencies. In one historical example from the 1950s FBI agents interviewed a Brooklyn liquor importer for repeating a rumor that the FBI Director J Edgar Hoover might be a “queer”. This clearly necessitated a reminder through questioning that Hoover’s “personal conduct is beyond reproach,” leading to the man quickly agreeing that “he thinks Mr. Hoover has done a wonderful job.” [1] Did this have anything to do with national security? No. Was it an abuse of power and surveillance? Yes. So far as we are aware the intelligence agencies don’t do things quite like this anymore but the revelations like PRISM, or the waterboarding a decade ago, show they are still happy to abuse their position from time to time. This is hardly a good way to build trust. [1] Gage, Beverly, ‘It’s Not About Your Cat Photos’, Slate, 10 June 2013, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
The circumstances in the cold war were clearly different to today so this kind of abuse of power would be unlikely to happen. More broadly yes there is the potential for abuse in much the same way that there are people in banks who could steal large quantities of other people’s money. That there is a potential opportunity does not mean it is ever used. Abuse can never be totally avoided but if abuse is a concern then whether or not there is a program of surveillance is not the highest concern. Even if there were not wide ranging surveillance problems those in intelligence looking to abuse their position would be able to obtain the information because they have the technology to do so. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A threat to democracy Yes the NSA is unlikely to look at individual’s personal information if the person in question is nobody of interest yet there are people who may be of interest to the state who are essentially innocent of anything except annoying the state. The ability for almost anyone in the intelligence apparatus to look up personal information has to worry anyone who might otherwise dissent, investigate the government, or turn whistleblower. Intelligence officials can hold the information as a weapon to ensure compliance and ruin careers if they don’t get their way. [1] This has happened before. In the US when diplomat Joseph C. Wilson published about the manipulation of intelligence on uranium from Niger being used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq his wife had her cover blown and career destroyed by people within the Department of Defense. [2] When we know that the Obama administration has been more determined than ever to prevent leaks and prosecute perpetrators can it really be said there is no damage to democracy if these courageous people are not coming forward? [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, [2] Wilson, Joseph C., ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa’, The New York Times, 6 July 2003, Lewis, Neil A., ‘Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role’, The New York Times, 30 August 2006, | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy
Far from threatening democracy the intelligence agencies are using this information to protect democracy from terrorists who wish to overthrow the whole concept of democratic governance. Intelligence agencies are clearly under civilian control and have several layers of oversight to ensure that this kind of misuse does not take place. In the United States this means there is oversight from Congress and in the UK from Parliament. There is also judicial oversight in the form of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner in the UK [1] and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the US. [2] [1] ‘Judicial Oversight’, Security Service MI5, [2] ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’, Federal Judicial Center, |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifdfaihs-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Risk of a two-tier Internet As things stand there are relatively flat rate services. The concern is that ISP would charge higher rates for full Internet access or act to ensure that their own content arrived seamlessly and smoothly, while that of competitors was delayed or poorer quality or that higher bandwidth applications end up with a higher price-tag [i] . This is of concern both to end users and to the producers of content. There are very real concerns here, as a result, about the impact this has on freedom of expression. The best way to avoid censorship – either commercial or political – is to ensure that it remains impossible to achieve in the first place. Once it becomes possible to give preference to some forms of content or points of origin, then commercial censorship at least becomes a great deal easier. [i] BBC News Website. “BT Content Connect service faces ‘two-tier net’ claims. 4 January 2011. | e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports
This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship – not having net neutrality will not stop users accessing certain sites, just make it slower. Data from some points of origin, especially games and file-sharing programmes slow down the entire network. It’s unfair to other users. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifdfaihs-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Privacy This was the clinching argument in the Dutch example. Labour MP Martijn van Dam, one of the bill’s co-authors said that Dutch ISP KPN was similar to “a postal worker who delivers a letter, looks to see what’s in it and then claims he hasn’t read it. It is simply a basic principle of the Internet that for it to continue working as it does now, all data needs to be treated the same otherwise judgements will be formed on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ data [i] . The principle here is that the data being used is simply none of the ISPs business. Their job is simply to provide an agreed bandwidth, at an agreed price to the end user. How the end user makes use of that band width is up to them. If, for example, they’re choosing to Skype from a mobile device – one of the points of contention – it’s hard to see what that has to do with the ISP. [i] PCWorld. Matthew Honan, MacWorld. “Inside Net Neutrality: Privacy and BitTorrent. 14 February 2008. | e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports
The postal worker analogy is an interesting one. Certainly, the end user wouldn’t want the worker snooping through their mail; however they would expect to pay more for the stamp if they were sending a parcel – the equivalent of sending voice messages or receiving films rather than email and text. It is also not directly analogous to a postman looking at the contents of someone’s mail because to tell what type of data it is and the size ISPs don’t read the content of the data. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifdfaihs-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Threats to Freeware, Shareware and Objectivity There are very real concerns that ISPs have a commercial interest in guiding people away from certain sites – especially when those sites provide services or products for nothing when the ISP or a related company charges for a competing product. File sharing more generally is an obvious target. The example of Comcast against NetFlix and other file sharing sites is simply the most obvious [i] . There are also concerns about the impact on objectivity more generally; the Internet works most effectively as a tool because it is, by definition cross-referencing. Although there are many mistakes on many sources as a whole it is possible to reach something resembling the truth. Essentially, “We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.” [ii] Making some sites more accessible than others reduces users’ choice and their ability to check multiple sites so preventing this cross-referencing. [i] A useful overview of some of the more notorious examples can be found here . [ii] Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism | e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports
The idea that there is a virtue in providing things for free takes a somewhat cavalier attitude toward jobs. It is a predicate of this, and many other, arguments that the Internet should be either free or very cheap, but this does little for protecting genuine sources of expertise. Equally the costs incurred by ISPs for carrying the huge data loads of heavy users will simply end up being met by users who aren’t using that level of data. It doesn’t seem that unreasonable that those using the data should be paying for that at least. After all, they’re already avoiding paying the studio, the writer, the actors, musicians [i] and many others involved in the production of goods. Freeware may be freely given, but plenty of other pieces of intellectual property aren’t. Why should those people then have the data usage subsidised by others as well? [i] Songwriters Guild of America. Rick Carnes. “Demythologizing Net Neutrality. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifdfaihs-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Allow ISPs to monitor and remove illegal or unwanted data Many ISPs are responding to user interests when cutting out particular types of data. At the request of the user why shouldn’t they be able to monitor what is delivered to a certain IP address. Most ‘net nanny’ software is not that difficult to get around [i] . Why not let parents who bought their kids a computer to help with their homework not be able to block them from making calls or watching movies? If you compel net neutrality then, say, the ISP who caters for religious customers can no longer deliver the service that they have requested. Denying freedom of choice seems a high price to pay so that someone can get movies without paying for them. Equally, if ISPs themselves want to stay within the law and prevent people from accessing illegal or otherwise unpleasant sites, why shouldn’t they? [i] Foss Force: Keeping Tech Free. Caesar Tjalbo. “Top 10 Reasons ISPs are against net neutrality”. | e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports
Censorship has routinely been presented in terms of ‘protecting public morals’ or ‘defending national security’ or some similar euphemism, with legislation aimed at pornography but catching everything else in its track as simply the most obvious example [i] . It doesn’t change what it is [ii] . In addition to which, there are very real reasons to believe that the incentives of ISPs here are more financial than moral – they would, after all, stand to make quite a lot of money. [i] The New Statesman. Nelson Jones. “The Censored Isle”. 6 August 2012. [ii] Boston College Law Review. Prof. Jonathan Zittrain. “Internet Points of Control”. Vol. 44, pg. 653, 2003. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifdfaihs-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Realistic costs for users and providers of bandwidth and phones The example of mobile devices is, perhaps the most clear-cut. Manufacturers of mobile devices expect to make their money back and make a profit. They need to do this to pay salaries, invest in the next project and keep their shareholders happy. To do that they make a calculation based on the price of the original product and what additional revenue they are likely to make over the lifetime of that product’s use. Phone companies in particular have complained that major content providers are simply not paying a fair share of the costs with the VP of Verizon, for example, accusing Google of getting “a free lunch” at the expense of network providers [i] . Net neutrality compels some companies to ignore basic financial realities [ii] . For all that Proposition – and others such as politicians in Amsterdam and Santiago – may think that changing the basic rules of economics is a good idea, they have yet to explain how this Socialist utopia will work. [i] Washington Post. Ashad Mohammed. “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch”. 7 February 2006. [ii] The Economist. “The Difference Engine: Download Dilemma”. 6 May 2011. | e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports
It’s no secret that many companies have had difficulty working out effective models for dealing with the internet. That doesn’t justify simple price-gouging. Neither does it justify an invasion of privacy. It’s the equivalent of a restaurant waiting for customers to order, eat their meal and then set the prices. |
arguana-qrel-test-digital-freedoms-eifdfaihs-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Incentivise ISPs to provide more data capacity If the ISPs were actually making their money on the basis of data provision rather than bandwidth then it’s in their interest to provide it. If they can’t, they don’t make money. If they want to sell more data, they have to provide more bandwidth, otherwise they can’t do it. This way both the data gluttons and the dieters get what they want. The gluttons get a fast provision of the resources they want or the capacity to share those resources at a reasonable speed and the dieters get cheaper provision. Measures being pursued by the European Commission aim to do exactly this. They will allow ISPs to control the passage of data across their networks but must, at the same time, make it clear what they are doing and offer low data use price plans accordingly [i] . This is more so with mobile devices than with ‘plumbed in’ ones. For many people, it wouldn’t occur to them to use Skype for a call and a phone – even a smart one – is primarily just that, a phone. Why should they pay for a capacity they will never use because others can’t take a bus journey without watching a movie? [i] Out-Law.com: Legal news and guidance from Pinsent Masons. European Commission to propose net neutrality measures. 30 May 2012 . | e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports
The reverse also applies. In most countries the costs of basic infrastructure are shared. Taxpayers don’t get a discount if they don’t have kids in education, any more than they would just because they disagreed with a war that their taxes help to pay for. The argument doesn’t make sense. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The problem of suffering The world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering. | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
Most suffering and pain can be accounted for by the free will that humans exercise; God made us free and we use that freedom for evil as well as for good. As for illness and disease, it is hard for us to know the mind of God, but it may be that these trials are a necessary part of a world in which free and spiritual human beings can evolve and develop. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Null Hypothesis With regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption. The proposition need also be falsifiable, that is to say, there must be some potential fact that could be proven in order to disprove it. God is unfalsifiable because there is nothing. | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
All beliefs rely upon some form of presupposition as their grounding. The null hypothesis presupposes a natural world – but belief in God presupposes a supernatural world. It is unfair therefore to apply the null hypothesis to religious faith. Moreover, belief in God is a different to belief in an object in the physical world that we would expect to be physically verifiable. [1] [1] Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers’ WIRED Magazine. November 2006. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious belief is completely irrational There is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t. | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
There is good evidence that God exists and there are good arguments for accepting religious beliefs. The fact that we live in a beautiful, orderly universe in which human beings exist and have special moral and spiritual awareness points clearly to the existence of a divine Creator behind the universe. Billions of people have had religious experiences of one sort or another - all of them revealing the existence of divine reality - the only good explanation of this fact is that the divine reality is really there. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The God hypothesis is unnecessary Science provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in [1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief. [1] Bube, Richard H, ‘Man Come of Age: Bonhoeffer’s Response to the God-of-the-gaps’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, , p.207 | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
This is an inaccurate caricature of the relationship between science and religion. In fact most of the great scientists of history, such as Descartes, Newton and Einstein, have been religious believers, and the more we learn about the physical world (e.g. the fine balance between the fundamental forces of the universe, necessary for organic life to develop) the more it seems that it has been designed to produce human life by an intelligent God. The fact that there is a physical side to reality does not, in any case, mean that there cannot also be a spiritual dimension. Nor does the fact that the mind and brain are closely correlated mean that they are the same thing. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge Religions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force. Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong. Whatever small amount of psychological comfort religious belief may give, the evils it is responsible for in the social and political worlds easily outweigh it. | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
Religion may have been the occasion for various social and political wrongs, but it is not the cause. You can be quite sure that if you took away all the world’s religions people would still identify themselves with national and political groups and go to war over territory, political conflict etc. Equally elitism and bigotry are, sadly, parts of human nature with or without religion. In fact religious belief, when taken seriously and sincerely, is a force for good in the world, promoting humility, morality, wisdom, equality, and social justice. Social justice is at the heart of the Christian gospel. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Prime Mover The universe follows rules of causality – cause precedes effect. But it cannot be the case that cause and effect regress infinitely into the past – there must be a ‘prime cause’. There is an identifiable point for this – the Universe was formed about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang, before which we cannot detect any chain of causality. What was the prime mover? It had by definition to be a being existing outside of our conception of reality – the natural answer being ‘God’. | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
This argument is an attempt to shoehorn God into one of the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the Universe and should be treated as such – it doesn’t really give reasons why one should believe in God, it throws up conjecture and asks ‘why not’? If everything needs a prime cause, what is the prime cause of God? If God can be an exception, why can't the universe be one especially since it is more rational with accordance to Occam's Razor - that the simplest hypothosis is most likely to be correct. This point is merely a substitution of one problem by another. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The rareness of Life Life requires an extremely fine set of conditions in order to exist. The right distance from the Sun, a magnetic field to deflect solar radiation, the right atmospheric composition and conditions etc. These conditions are extremely rare; indeed only on Earth have we observed that they are just right for life to have evolved. [1] This is so unlikely that it leads to the conclusion that God must have intervened. [1] McAlpine, Kate, ‘Extraterrestrial life could be extremely rare’, physicsworld.com, 1 August 2011, | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
This argument is based on a subtle fallacy – the only reason we are here to observe the fact that the Earth is so well suited to support life is that fact that it is so well suited to support life – if the Earth was a barren rock then we would not exist to see it. It shouldn’t be surprising therefore that out of the billions of solar systems in the Universe; we live on the planet that is suited to our survival. Additionally, while the conditions necessary for life appear to be rare (and our ability to observe planets from even relatively nearby solar systems is limited), the Universe has billions and billions of chances to ‘get it right’. It is very unlikely that you will win the lottery, but with millions of people playing it is actually very likely that somebody will win the lottery. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-frghbbgi-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Revealed wisdom Godly wisdom is not the same as human wisdom and cannot be subject to the same criticism. The nature of humanity means that our ability to understand God’s wisdom is fundamentally limited; and thus arguments based on morality or science are irrelevant – what matters is that God has revealed Himself. | faith religion general house believes belief god irrational
This is just special pleading; firstly there is no reason to consider Godly wisdom as being beyond our capacity to comprehend; and secondly there are discernable flaws in that wisdom as it is presented in a way that humans are supposed to be able to perceive and understand. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far: If God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled. [1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition. [1] Tooley, Michael. 2009. “The Problem of Evil”. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available: | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
Evil may be thought of as the absence of good. It is a privation of goodness, just as darkness is the absence of light. God is good and the embodiment of goodness, but humans have been endowed with free will; they can make the choice not to follow the path of good. People have the ability to make both good and bad choices; if they did not then they would not truly be free. God’s greatest gift to humanity is thus also a heavy burden. [1] [1] Kekes, John. 1990. Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro06b | Generate text that refutes this claim: entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon: The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes. [1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions. [2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods. [1] Henig, Robin. 2007. “Darwin’s God”. The New York Times. Available: [2] Pinker, Steven. 2004. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Evolution”. Annual Meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Available: | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
Not everything about religion can be explained by evolutionary psychology. The existence of the soul and the concept of an ethereal God not directly connected to the processes of the world could not simply come about by way of evolution. Rather, there must be true meaning in these concepts, or they must at least be indicative of something other than the strictly material, contradicting the denials of atheism. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism: God, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim. [1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt. [1] Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Ealing: Transworld Publishers. | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
There is no strict dichotomy in theology. It is perfectly reasonable for someone unsure of whether God exists to take up a position of agnosticism, refusing to emphatically accept the existence of God or to deny it. Atheism is a positive claim insofar as it is a statement about the nonexistence of God. The burden of proof is thus not so clearly on the shoulders of theism alone. Rather, they are rival claims that each side must be supported by positive evidence. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality: Physics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding. [1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief. [2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy. [1] Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books. [2] Russell, Bertrand. 1952. “Is There a God?” Campaign for Philosophical Freedom. Available: | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
Science cannot explain everything. People have spoken of the existence of the soul and of God through the ages because reason and logic are sometimes not enough to explain the complexity and depth of the human experience. God is far more than the occupier of the gaps in scientific knowledge. However, the gaps are indicative of the limitations of science and show that faith and God can still have a place in human comprehension of the world. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro07b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant: It seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side. [1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate. [1] Borne, Étienne. 1961. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books. | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
The question of God’s existence does matter, not only to those who believe, but to understanding of life and its meaning. If there is a God and He has a plan for humanity and the Universe, then in order to understand the plan and to become an active part in it, one must try to understand in some sense the nature of God. However, even if God were disinterested in His creation, that would do little to affect whether He exists or not. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it: Many people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason. [1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being. [2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation. [1] Drange, Theodore. 1998. "Nonbelief as Support for Atheism". Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. [2] Schellenberg, John. 2005. "The Hiddenness Argument Revisited". Religious Studies 41. | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
It is unreasonable to suggest that God must reveal Himself to humanity, or to make His existence manifestly clear because that would undermine the value of faith. [1] Belief is an important component of all religious teachings because it is what allows the soul to transcend the material world and to commune with the divinity. For the religious, a life without faith is meaningless. Furthermore, if God were to make His desires and commands known, then free will would be undermined. It is necessary to the exercise of individual human agency that God not dictate every command to people. That is why God leaves life, at least on the surface, up to humans. [1] Maitzen, Stephen. 2006. "Divine Hiddenness and the Demographics of Theism". Religious Studies 42. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory: A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible. [1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position. [1] Savage, C. 1967. "The Paradox of the Stone". Philosophical Review 76(1). | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism: Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense. [1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. [2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics. | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
Atheism does not seek to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc.; that is what science is for. Atheism is about the existence of God. The atheist position is supported, however, by the fact that there is no evident design in the Universe. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity in the Universe can be attributed to natural processes; the Universe, stars, and life are all the product of physical and chemical interactions. There is no mystery in the basic process. Complexity can be shown to arise from less complex conditions without aid of intelligent agency. Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. The complexity of the Universe does nothing to support claims for the existence of a deity, but rather showcases the wondrousness of the natural world. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused: Every human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe. [1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning. [1] Craig, William Lane. 1979. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan. | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
If everything has a cause, then so too must the creator. Trying to place the deity outside of the spatio-temporal realm of the Universe is not a good argument, as nothing can be said meaningfully about what is “outside” the Universe, since we cannot observe or detect it. [1] Furthermore, saying God, or a creator, is uncaused and always existed is a poor argument because again this cannot be verified in any meaningful way. Irrespective of these problems, however, the argument falls down because it presupposes that the Universe has a cause, which is not necessarily the case. The very notion of causation is built into a temporal understanding of physics, which may not have been the case in the “pre-Universe”. Atheism can survive in the presence of science, theism cannot. If theism cannot survive, then neither can the agnostic middle ground based on the plausibility of theism. [1] Mackie, J. L. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-yercfrggms-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism: In a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other. [1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is. [1] Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (2008). | y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism
The rational position in the absence of positive evidence about God is not agnosticism, but atheism. While there is always a degree of doubt in every statement, this does not mean that negative claims about an entities existence can never be made. One can rationally state that fairies do not exist, even if there is no positive evidence for their non-existence. The very fact that no evidence exists for the existence of fairies, in the same way there is no evidence for the existence of God, is evidence of the negative. Thus, in the evidence of positive evidence for God, the rational default position is atheism. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible A report by the Royal Dutch Medical Association noted that there was not a single medical body in the world that could point, categorically to a medical need for circumcision of infants. It further concluded that “The fact that this practice is not medically necessary and entails a genuine risk of complications means that extra-stringent requirements must be established with regard to this type of information and advice.” Yet this is a practice that is performed around the world by people with little or no medical training and accepted by parents as an instruction from God. Studies from the US suggest that around 230 baby boys die in America every year as a direct result of hemorrhaging following circumcision [i] . [i] | w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant
There are, of course, risks in any medical procedure. However circumcision remains astonishingly safe. Furthermore, denying the parents of a child the right to raise that child in accordance with their own beliefs would represent an unacceptable intrusion by the state into its citizens’ private and religious lives. By implementing the resolution, a western liberal democratic state is obliging, say, orthodox Jewish parents, to compromise some of their most important moral and cultural beliefs. Ultra-orthodox Jewish groups believe, literally and without equivocation, that whoever breaks the covenant with God by not submitting to circumcision will be condemned for all eternity. The state should not compel parents (and children) to endure the moral, psychological and ideological turmoil associated with such a compromise; ultra-orthodox Jewish parents will see the state as forcing infinite harm upon their children. There are risks to giving a child a bike or taking them on a plane. Parents are aware of this but act in what they consider to be the best interests of their child. If we were to prevent parents from every taking a decision that might be risky for their children, they would never cross the street, eat a Big Mac or take up sports. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong If this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing [i] . At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate. Consider society’s reaction if the fingers of unwilling adults were forcibly removed. What about unwilling children? What about the fingers of babies fresh out of the womb? The only sane response to such an action would be condemnation – and probably an arrest. The logic of this argument does not change if “finger” is replaced with “foreskin”. Research undertaken by the World Health Organization found that the overwhelming determining factor in the decision as to whether a boy should be circumcised was whether the father had been [ii] . Although the report suggest a correlation with a reduction in the possibility in the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa it also comments, “If correctly planned, increased provision of accessible, safe adult male circumcision services could also increase opportunities to educate men in areas of high HIV prevalence about a variety of sexual and reproductive health topics, including hygiene, sexuality, gender relations and the need for ongoing combination prevention strategies to further decrease risk of HIV acquisition and transmission.” Out with this area the rate of adult male circumcision is very low, suggesting that when the individual is of an age to give consent, they chose not to. Performing an act on a child that would not be consented to by an adult except in extremis would seem a fairly reasonable definition of child abuse. [i] Shannon. “De-Fingered: Finger Amputations in BME News/Publishers’ Ring”. BME News. 11 March 2008. [ii] “Male Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability”. World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Council on HIV AIDS. 2007. | w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant
Neo-natal circumcision is an operation that has been performed, perhaps, more than any other. It is performed mostly for cultural or religious reasons but there is also a body of evidence that suggest health benefits. There is very little suggestion in any study of any harm to the child. In all sorts of situations societies allow parents to make decisions on behalf of their child. In the absence of proven harm and in the presence of possible benefits in terms of health and hygiene there is really no danger in allowing the parents this option. Those problems that can arise from the surgery are both very rare and as a result of faulty surgery rather than any risks innate within the process itself [i] . This is mostly a religious or cultural decision that has survived within communities for thousands of years without howls of protest and with no proven harm. In the absence of a sizable body of opinion calling for it to be ended, why do so? [i] Philip G. Koltz MD. “In Defence of Circumcision.” Letters to the Journal, Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. 29 October 1966. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied Any risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come. The risks of circumcision have been repeatedly demonstrated. Though they may be rare, they run from septicemia through to blood hemorrhage and heart attacks. There is little research conducted on the long term effects of the procedure; however there is a growing body of evidence that a surgical complication rate is about 1 in 500 and the post-surgical rate of attrition is believed by many to be higher [i] . [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. “The Case Against Circumcision”. Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45. | w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant
The precautionary principle is alive and well but risks are inevitable in any procedure. There is no reliable data on fatalities directly related to circumcision. The causes of the 10 million or so neonatal deaths that occur around the world each year are closely linked to the income and educational level of the mother, with diarrhea and malnutrition being the leading causes. By contrast children that are born with access to modern surgery and informed parents are likely to do well. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now Where there compelling evidence from medical science that a process that predates it had some proven harm then there might be good reason to restrict it but that evidence simply isn’t there. What is known is that circumcisions have been performed for millennia without causing widespread difficulties. In addition, historically, the procedure has been performed in circumstances far less safe than the confines of a modern, well-equipped hospital where it usually takes place now, and to no apparent ill effect. Even using the term ‘abuse’ to describe such a practice shows a lack of respect for those people who are genuinely victims of abuse. | w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant
Just because a practice is old doesn’t make it right. In addition to which societies’ attitudes, especially in the West, have changed radically in relationship to how we view both the body and childhood. There is no other area where the physical violation of a child’s body would be tolerated, regardless of how old the process is. Indeed society tends now to reject ancient traditions as they relate to children, specifically because they are archaic, as is the case with corporal punishment. There is good reason to suspect that what may have been appropriate, possibly even beneficial, for semi-nomadic desert tribes is of little use in modern society. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child [i] . [i] Michael Benatar. "How Not to Argue About Circumcision". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003 | w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant
It is possible to perform this operation at any time during a person’s life and there is no compelling need to perform it on extremely young children. Doing so violates the child’s right to be free from pain. Indeed the deliberate and unnecessary infliction of pain on a minor in any other circumstance would be considered abusive, it is clearly illogical not to consider it so in this instance. The only reason why circumcision is not considered abusive is that it is so commonplace. However, only a couple of generations ago (and to this day in many nations) so was the routine use of physical punishment in schools, which many now consider abusive and repugnant. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise Circumcision is akin, in many ways, to vaccination; a routine and simple procedure with miniscule risks and compelling probable benefits. We acknowledge the right of parents to take these decisions on the behalf of their children, even if the benefits in question are primarily cultural and spiritual, and relativistic in character. Parents routinely make decisions with far greater implications for their children’s futures in terms of their education and general welfare on a regular basis and this should really be seen as no different [i] . As has been established, even in the most impromptu settings, male circumcision, unlike FGM, runs almost no risk of causing severe injury or infection. MGM does not endanger or restrict a child's development, or his ability to living and normal, fulfilled adult life. Parents make much more damaging choices for their children all the time - choices that do not involve modification of a child's body. The cost of raising a child as a junior rugby player is an increased risk that the child may sustain life changing injuries. The cost of sending a child to a Montessori nursery as opposed to a curriculum-based institution is the possibility that they may lack personal discipline or respect for authority later in life. Parents are still permitted to make these decisions, despite the impact they may have on a child’s development. Why not allow them to submit their children to a relatively minor and inconsequential aesthetic procedure? [i] Dr. Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences. "Circumcision Should Be Routine; is Akin to a Safe Surgical ‘Vaccine’". Opposing Views | w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant
Parents do not have the right to presume their children’s consent for procedures that are medically unnecessary, as in the case of circumcision. Ultimately this is a choice that has more to do with culture than with medical need. The purported benefits are, at best, questionable and the results are irreversible. The medical benefits of vaccination, by contrast, are undisputed and widely publicized. In those interests where the balance of risk is even remotely questioned, as in the case of the MMR vaccine, there is significant public debate and many parents have chosen to avoid the practice all together [i] . [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare This has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.” [i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns. This issue has consumed political energy for over a decade and received massive national and international attention and yet there are far more pressing concerns for the nation – and its political leaders. Instead this bill, which carries the marks of both political and moral corruption has been the main focus of the president and congress. At the very least this suggests a questionable sense of priority, at worst a gross lack of interest in the welfare of the Filipino people. [i] Villegas, Socrates B., ‘Contraception is Corruption!’, CBCP News, 15 December 2012, | church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive
It is undeniably true that greater investment in public services would help the poor. It is however, difficult to see how these two things are mutually exclusive. Indeed the results of this measure look set to considerably increase the chances of an education and healthcare for every child. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex The population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children. However, freely available contraception leads to a rise in premarital sex with the rises in unwanted pregnancies that go along with that. In the US, women having premarital sex increased from 2% in 1920 to 75% in 1999, a period that saw a massive increase in the availability of contraception [i] .. This runs against the teaching of the Church, which, itself, is one of the cornerstones of Filipino culture. The first Mass was celebrated in 1521 and by the early 1600s, Catholicism was unquestionably the countries’ dominant creed [ii] . The teaching of the Church on this issue is absolutely clear – and for four centuries those have been the values of the Filipino people. This bill undermines that understanding, it will lead to an increase in pre-marital sex with devastating consequences for, particularly, the young people of the archipelago [iii] . There is a reason why the Church argues against contraception and those values – that sex should take place within marriage, are deeply ingrained in the Filipino way of life. [i] Greenwood, Jeremy and Nezih Guner “Social Change: The Sexual Revolution.” Population Studies Center PSC Working Paper Series University of Pennsylvania.2009 [ii] Wikipedia. Roman Catholicism in the Philippines. [iii] Bishop Filomeno Bactol, ‘Naval diocese continues fight against RH’,. CBCP News., 23 December 2012, | church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive
It is simply untrue to suggest that Catholic hegemony is one and the same as Filipino values and that the two are – or have ever been – indistinguishably intertwined. Even where popular support for this very bill not sufficient proof, the very fact that the Filipino constitution states quite clearly that there is a division between the secular and ecclesiastical should be enough [i] . [i] Constitution of the Philippines. Article III (Bill of Rights). Section Five. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family. [i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity. [ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal. In terms of politics these values mean support for democracy but also being against corruption and graft. [iii] Obviously the bill has been very politically divisive so undermining social harmony but also to pass this bill many parliamentarians had to be bribed so undermining this social harmony. The Reproductive Health bill represents the worst excesses of the pork barrel buffet. With a single-mindedness of purpose, the presidential palace has put everything on the table to shore up the votes required in parliament. Legislators, who had previously voted against the legislation, often repeatedly, where threatened with the loss of programmes in their constituencies if they failed to back the project, which has been at the heart of the presidential agenda [iv] . [i] Dolan, Ronald E., ed., Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991. [ii] Arcidiacono, Peter, et al., ‘Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies’, P.30 [iii] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines, [iv] Philippine Daily Inquirer. Philip Tubeza. ‘Philippine President accused of ‘bribing’ Congress’. Reported on Yahoo News 19 December 2012. | church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive
It should be remembered that other values within the 1987 constitution include ecological balance and the recognition of the role of women, [i] both of which are advanced by giving women access to birth control. Pork barrel politics is an all too real tradition of Filipino politics, it is hardly unique to this bill. The fact that its use lead to the implementation of a policy that enjoys popular support is difficult to square with the somewhat wild claims of the Church about corruption. The CBCP has also been fairly free on allegations in this regard but very, very short on proof. The amount of political pressure required had more to do with calming fears of the Catholic establishment intervening directly in elections than with the views of the people. [i] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines, |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women Both sides of this debate have spoken about the need to respect the rights and lives of women. It is, however, difficult to see how exactly opponents of the legislation reconcile this with their actions. Decades’ worth of research demonstrates that educational, health and nutritional levels all fall once a family outgrows its means. In the slums of Manila that research is unnecessary as it is all too apparent at a glance. However the research is there [i] to provide grisly commentary to the narrative folding out on the streets. Investigations on a personal, national and global level demonstrate that effective family planning is at the heart of eradicating poverty [ii] . When families have less children they are more able to afford better education for those they do have and have a greater incentive to do so as they need their child to be able to support them when they are retired. [iii] Proposition is keen that this money should have been spent on eradicating poverty – they fail to realise, deliberately or otherwise, that that is exactly what it is being spent on. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘The Philippines’ Birth Control Battle’, Time, 6 June 2008. [ii] Brown, Lester, ‘Smart Family Planning Improves Women’s Health and Reduces Poverty’, guardian.co.uk 14 April 2011. [iii] Merrick, Thomas, W., ‘Population and P{overty: New Views on an Old Controversy’, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol.28, No.1, March 2002, | church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive
It is difficult to see how the life of anyone is improved by reducing sex to a cheap form of entertainment. Certainly not the unborn children and not the objectified women. Proposition is more than happy for women to take control of their own fertility – indeed we would go further and suggest that their boyfriends and husbands should do so as well. Recreational sex, within wedlock and during times of infertility removes all of these problems; a little planning and restraint achieves that aim. It also means that both parents need to show that they are responsible for the results; Op seems happy to say that people are uncontrollable beasts with no control over their desires – hardly an edifying concept. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier. In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life. However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe. | church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive
It is difficult to see how the life of anyone is improved by reducing sex to a cheap form of entertainment. Certainly not the unborn children and not the objectified women. Proposition is more than happy for women to take control of their own fertility – indeed we would go further and suggest that their boyfriends and husbands should do so as well. Recreational sex, within wedlock and during times of infertility removes all of these problems; a little planning and restraint achieves that aim. It also means that both parents need to show that they are responsible for the results; Op seems happy to say that people are uncontrollable beasts with no control over their desires – hardly an edifying concept. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] . The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. [ii] Ibid. | church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive
Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] . The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. [ii] Ibid. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious symbols cause problems in schools. As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1 1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Intolerant schools cause more problems for not allowing freedom of religious expression. In a multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect, religious groups with distinctive symbols, such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Christians, will be driven out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately.1 As for the worry about safety issues, particularly concerning hair length, most classroom accidents occur when loose, long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame which would not be a problem when hair is held in place under a headscarf. 1 'Religious Rights and Wrongs', The Economist, 4th September 2008, accessed 24th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Even though the wearing of religious symbols could be a part of that specific religions' culture and practice, it must be remembered that Western society and culture brands itself as secular and, therefore, should take precedence over clashes with minority cultural practices. In Britain there has been controversy over movements to include Sharia Law in the British legal system, which ties in with this same argument of culture clashes concerning religious methods.1 Essentially, the question arises as to how far is tolerance for different cultural practices detrimental for the maintenance of a secular British culture and state. 1 Abul Taher, 'Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts', The Sunday Times, 14th September 2008 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious symbols cause division within Western society. Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations. 1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations. 1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A ban would be simple to enforce. A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with. 1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff. |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others. At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is their culture and religion. Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1 1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual, including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions without hindrance. 1 'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
It would not be necessary to ban all religious symbols if one was banned. Banning religious symbols that are regarded as dangerous, such as the Kirpan, would be very different from banning crucifixes as the justification would be different.1 And if people start asking for other things to be banned, their cases should be listened to. Some of them may have a point for banning them. However if a symbol poses a risk then it should be banned in order to prevent that risk. 1 'Kirpan incident raises questions about court ruling', The Montreal Gazette, 16th September 2008 , accessed on 25th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-grcrgshwbr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-msgfhwbamec-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important Arranged marriages have not been a part of the cultures of most European countries for many years now. Part of the reason for this is because ideas about marriage have become more progressive, with people accepting that men and women of any orientation should be allowed to choose their own partners. This was even the case during the socially conservative era of the 1950s, when it was generally accepted in countries like Britain that people would court and meet their partners independently of their parents. [1] Arranged marriages also conform to a view of women in particular which regards them as chattel. This does not fit in with the type of egalitarianism many European countries seek to practice, and thus does not conform to Western notions of individual rights. [2] It is also hypocritical to adopt a double-standard with diaspora communities, turning a blind eye to practices which many other majority groups find reprehensible. The rights and norms of a country of block of countries such as the EU must apply to all. [1] Cook, Hera, ‘No Turning Back: Family forms and sexual mores in modern Britain,’ History & Policy - (accessed on 19 September 2012) [2] ‘Human Rights with Reference to Women,’ UKEssays.com - (accessed on 19 September 2012) | marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries
Different systems of matrimony can easily co-exist. Arranged marriages encourage family over individualism, placing emphasis on a more considerate view of relationships that encourages development and patience rather than Hollywood romance. It is however not a rejection of western values to practice arranged marriages. As pointed out by those who have written extensively on arranged marriages, [1] people in them often have a view of relationships that sees their spouse as a companion and source of support, but not as their only source of happiness. Learning to love a spouse as opposed to being with someone with whom there already exists a romantic interest can mean learning to value smaller gestures rather than having overblown expectations from a relationship. The notion that all marriages have to be based on clichéd and unrealistic notions of love is delusional and deeply flawed. The fact that so few marriages measure up to the conventional Western ideal could help to explain why divorce rates are so high upon non-arranged marriages. In societies that claim to be plural and tolerant, contrasting views of marriage existing side-by-side should surely be encouraged. [1] ‘Would you be happier in an arranged marriage?’ Redbook.com - (accessed 20 September 2012) |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-msgfhwbamec-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Individual Freedom Even if marriages are not made absolutely mandatory, covert family pressure can still propel people into unions where they will be unhappy. This is a form of restricted liberty as the consequences of people rebelling against arranged marriages can include being forced to leave home or suffering stigmatisation and reduced contact with family members. The stigma may also be the other way with the family feeling shame when their children reject their arrangements this in turn can lead to attempts at compulsion and even some cases like that of Shafilea Ahmed murder for the rejection of the marriage. [1] Clearly there is a thin line between arranged and forced marriages. Although things like stigmatisation are harder to police than physical intimidation or violence, it is only right that the state steps in to regulate these harms, giving people the legal mandate to challenge the practice as well as to discourage relatives from attempting it from the outset. [1] Carter, Helen, ‘Shafilea Ahmed killed by parents for bringing shame on family, court hears’, guardian.co.uk, 21 May 2012, | marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries
Such understandings of arranged marriages are insensitive and misleading. The reality of many arranged marriages is far from the one presented here. Often individuals do have a say in who they marry, and although parents may make the first move in introducing the potential bride and groom, many would not insist the marriage go ahead if the two personalities do not sync. [1] Parents often see it as a partnership between themselves and their children to decide who would be a future suitable spouse, with all sides having a say in the arrangement. Arranged marriages are also a cultural norm in many societies, and to impose an outright ban on such an entrenched practice with so many nuances and variations would be a deeply insulting and ignorant gesture. [1] Acharya Ingrum, Pri, ‘The Reality of Arranged Marriages’ - (accessed on 21 September 2012) |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-msgfhwbamec-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Women in arranged marriages in Europe are disproportionately likely to suffer abuse Arranged marriages are often different when practiced in the home countries of many immigrant families in Europe, where women often have networks of friends and relatives to rely on. The danger with allowing arranged marriages to happen in EU countries are that the women at the centre are often far more vulnerable, away from their own family, unfamiliar with the local language and fully reliant on their husband’s family. This makes it easier for domestic abuses to go undetected which is simply compounding problems of underreporting. [1] It is therefore likely that there is more domestic violence within arranged marriages. [2] This is shown even amongst women who still consented to arranged marriages but faced abuse from their husbands – such as with the case of Razia Sodagar, whose husband abandoned her for another woman after she failed to fall pregnant. [3] This illustrates how it is not always easy to draw a clear division between arranged marriages and forced marriages, as the former can often bear the same characteristics as the latter. It would therefore be safer to outlaw both. [1] ‘Ethnic domestic violence ‘hidden’’, BBC News, 20 September 2007, [2] Gotrik, Jennifer, ‘India domestic abuse more common in ‘arranged’ marriages’, Womennewsnetwork, 12 September 2011, [3] ‘Fighting Arranged Marriage Abuse,’ BBC, 12 July 1999 - | marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries
Domestic violence is hardly exclusive to arranged partnerships. Surely focusing exclusively on arranged marriages is missing the point somewhat. Domestic violence, especially against women, pervades many relationships across many European countries. There are just as many arranged marriages that are abuse-free, just as is the case with non-arranged marriages. To be logically coherent, the natural conclusion of the proposition’s argument would be to ban every kind of relationship so as to completely eliminate the risk of domestic violence. One can find numerous examples to illustrate this. One is that of Sai Srinivasan and Uma Viswanathan, who were brought together by their families, each with the choice of rejecting the other if they felt there was no fit, and have had a happy union ever since. [1] More resources should therefore be channelled towards addressing violence against women (and men) in relationships of any sort – not simply targeting those that have more uninformed ‘western’ prejudices attached to them. [1] Black, Lisa, ‘Arranged – not forced - marriages a good match in many cultures,’ Chicago Tribune, 27 July 2011 - |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-msgfhwbamec-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 - | marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries
You can extend that argument to any kind of illiberal practice. The same could easily be said of practices like FGM. Choosing not to ban certain traditions just because they are culturally entrenched could be extended to anything, from slavery to torture. The fact of the matter is that some practices simply cannot be allowed. There are already cases where the police choose not to intervene in cases of domestic violence where a south Asian family is involved, giving rise to claims that they feel to timid to bring the same laws into practice for fear of infringing upon the cultural practices of minorities. [1] Furthermore, many writers like Pragna Patel [2] have claimed that the more illiberal elements of communities such as the South Asian diaspora are merely fabrications designed to oppress women. It is important not to fall into the trap of condoning practices that have no place in any society by allowing them to shelter behind the veil of ‘cultural differences.’ [1] Patel, Pragna, ‘The Use and Abuse of Honour-Based Violence in the UK,’ Open Democracy,6 June 2012 - [2] Ibid., |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-msgfhwbamec-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters Matters relating to how individuals conduct themselves in a private and consensual environment are arguably not the concern of the state. This extends to how people get married and within which tradition, religion or denomination. European states are increasingly allowing non-traditional marriages such as gay marriages [1] so not allowing arranged marriages for those who want them would be a perverse step backwards. Given that arranged marriages in themselves do not have any proven harms, and that, as it has already been asserted, the harmful side of arranged marriages, like forced marriages have already been outlawed, the state cannot keep regulating something with such an arbitrary and wide-ranging definition that includes so many consenting adults. Were EU states to do this, the harm caused would risk infringing on the very rights of the people the proposition claims they are meant to be protecting in the first place. [1] ‘Countries Where Gay Marriage Is Legal: Netherlands, Argentina & More, The Daily Beast, 9 May 2012, | marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries
When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1] Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU. [1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - (accessed 23 September 2012) |
arguana-qrel-test-religion-msgfhwbamec-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It’s impossible to police such a law. There is simply no feasible way of enforcing laws against arranged marriages, particularly as it is almost guaranteed that many communities will continue to practice them regardless. It will be impossible to tell whether a marriage has been started by arrangement if the community and the couple are unwilling to go to the police and most will be unwilling to report their own families when practicing a cultural tradition. Those who are deeply dissatisfied and beaten may do so but in this instance the law already allows divorce and abuse is punishable by the full force of the law. Given that forced marriages have already been outlawed and that it has been established that arranged marriages in themselves cause few provable harms, the resources of any police force would arguably be wasted on enforcing such a law; investigations would be very intrusive and labour intensive. Furthermore, given the continuation of practices like honour killings, [1] as well as rape and domestic violence, law enforcement personnel would be better placed targeting far more heinous crimes than arranged marriages. A tangible harm could arise from the police being made to direct their energies towards such minor misdemeanours, in that there could be fewer resources available for more serious crimes. [1] ‘Europe Grapples with “Honour Killings,” DW.de - (accessed 17 September 2012) | marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries
The new laws can set a precedent, even if it takes time. Bringing into practice such a law would arguably help send a message that certain practices do not sync with the sorts of societies European countries try to forge – this includes cases of Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings and forced marriages. Although the law is likely to be hard to police initially, in time it could allow for greater respect for values about the rights of individuals to be adopted by diaspora communities in Europe. Other countries have adopted measures that are equally as far-reaching, such as the banning of wearing religious symbols in French schools. [1] Countries outside of Europe demand that ex-patriot Europeans within their borders comply with specific laws that arte designed to benefit the whole nation. It is therefore hardly unreasonable for EU countries to do the same. [1] ‘French Scarf Ban Comes into Force,’ BBC, 2 September 2004 - |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’. We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases. [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association, on 09/09/11 [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association, on 09/09/11 | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it – it ignores it. A better way for the government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial speech is to engage with it in a public forum and reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide it from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these websites would feel as if the government is actively protecting them and their rights and punishing those who have violated them, rather than simply closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways. This motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites. In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases [1] [2] . Given that both physical [3] and psychological [4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals [5] . Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens [6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this. [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009, on 16/09/11 [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, on 16/09/11 [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, on 16/09/11. [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, on 16/09/11 [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010, on 16/09/11 [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008, 09/09/11 | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
Given the number of people who actually use Facebook [1] and other social networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small [2] . These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to communicate with friends [3] and share photos [4] innocently. [1] BBC News, ‘Facebook hits 500m user milestone’, 21 July 2010, 09/09/11. [2] BBC News, ‘UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities’, 10 August 2011, on 09/09/11. [3] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic, on 09/09/11. [4] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic, on 09/09/11. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are. Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship [1] , and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation [2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet [3] , alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves [4] . [1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central, on 09/09/11 [2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007, on 09/09/11. [3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country & Region’, on 09/09/11 [4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011, on 09/09/11 | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
Any information from television or newspapers has already been regulated, so it is not a problem that it may now appear somewhere on the internet. It is exactly because the internet is a forum for free information and expression that so many people engage with it; removing this is a dictatorial move against ordinary citizens who seek information without bias and undue censorship. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government. Given that the Internet is used as an international [1] and public space [2] , the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’ [3] , demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites. [1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’, [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002, on 09/09/11 [3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from on | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection. [1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011, on 09/09/11. [2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers, on 09/09/11. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: People often react poorly to being censored by their governments. In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government’s constant censorship has led to public outrage [1] , and political satire which heavily criticises the government [2] . Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices. [1] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011, on 09/09/11 [2] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011, on 09/09/11. | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesn’t like – raising taxes is an obvious example. However, it is also recognised that sometimes the government has to do these things in order to represent the long-term, best interest of its people – whether or not it is a popular measure at the time. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-ciidfaihwc-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech. Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether. | censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests. [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007, on 09/09/11. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth. It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals. | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5] |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It would send out a consistent message Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it? | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Animals shouldn’t be harmed The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3] | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It isn’t necessary We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful. The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7] | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8] |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9] | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
The decision to test is not based upon the capacity to suffer. But it should be remembered that the individual being tested would not be the only one who suffers, for the intellectually disabled we must remember their families would suffer as well. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: People will die if we don’t do animal testing Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
Many of these drugs are “me too” drugs – ones with a slight change that doesn’t make much difference to an existing drug. [14] So often the benefits from animal testing are marginal, and even if there was a slight increase in human suffering, it would be worth it based on the animal suffering saved. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Research animals are well treated Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild. As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat. | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better. | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Testing is needed for really new drugs The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests. These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk. | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15]. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-eassgbatj-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11] | ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior
To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12] |
arguana-qrel-test-science-cpisydfphwj-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Facebook provides an information point Undoubtedly, one of the most important aspects which will influence your efforts to improve your life is your ability to take advantage of every opportunity which comes up. Obviously, one of the, if not the, best way to do this is to stay connected with the world around you, this enables you to be able to quickly find out about job opportunities, sporting competitions or social events in your area. Facebook created and developed an efficient, extremely widely visited platform on which millions of users can get in touch with each other. This can prove to be an extremely useful tool both for companies or event planners and direct customers. No matter if we are talking about Google's new hiring policy or Toyota's new discount, an upcoming music festival or a football tournament for amateur players, Facebook is informing the individuals about these events, keeping them connected with their community. Social networks are more efficient to serving this purpose than other more conventional means like TV commercials because it is free. A very good example of this is the Kony 2012 campaign, which informed the people about the atrocities that happened in Uganda at the time, mainly relying only on social media. The Youtube video telling its story has more than 98 million views and also there were more posts on Facebook about Kony on March 6th and 7th than even Apple’s new iPad or TV releases. (1) No matter if we talk about TV ads, radio commercials or billboards, the price that has to be paid in order to promote an event is a big drawback for anyone who wants to inform the population. As a result, Facebook as with other social media is the online, cheap, efficient equivalent to an info point. (1) Kyle Willis “Kony 2012 Social Media Case Study “, March 8, 2012 | computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join
It is true that a society in which information is widely available to the public is desirable, but what must be recognized that this argument of “social platform publicity” encounters two main problems. First of all, unless your information is lucky enough to go viral if you really want efficient online advertising you will have to pay for it, even when it comes to social networks. “When Facebook launched its log-out screen ads, reports suggested it was charging $700,000 for them, but in reality they came bundled with a homage ad commitment, too. Buyers say they’re now selling log-out ads standalone for around $100,000.”(1). As a result, you can hardly call them “free”. Secondly, online advertising comes merely as a back-up or as an addition to full-time campaign ads. No matter what kind of event we are talking about, if it is of general interest, the information will be distributed to the population. It will be either promoted by the company itself, if we are talking about a massive price discount for the new Toyota, or by the local or national media, if we are talking about a concert or a sporting event. The information will be more efficiently transmitted through advertising mechanisms, as this allows the targeting of certain groups of individuals who are interest in those events rather than relying on people stumbling onto a Facebook page. For example posting an ad announcing a new soccer competition in a sports magazine will be more effective as we know the readers will be interested. There are other means which serve the purpose of promoting information, the promoters will pick the best ones, which may or may not mean Facebook. (1) Jack Marshall “What Online Ads Really Cost”, February 22, 2013 |
arguana-qrel-test-science-cpisydfphwj-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Facebook encourages socialisation One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems. Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1) Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2) (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012 (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012 | computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join
On this point, there are two levels of analysis which will demonstrate that, at the end of the day, Facebook has a detrimental effect on one’s social abilities. First of all, of course having a lot of friends has numerous advantages and it is undoubtedly beneficial to one’s development, but being active on a social network isn’t an indispensable prerequisite for this. As an individual, you can meet, talk, connect and share feelings and emotions in real life with your friends without any problems. People nowadays are not more socially bonded than before the appearance of Facebook and other social networks, because what Facebook did was merely shifting the face-to-face socialization to an online version of it. Moreover, you don’t need the “Rock Fans” group on Facebook in order to meet new people who are also interested in rock music, as you have real rock events and concerts where you can meet with people with whom you have shared interests and thus expand your friend group. Secondly, when using social networks as a tool to socialize, teenagers tend to rely too much on them, getting comfortable chatting behind a glass monitor, but this can mean having problems exiting this comfort-zone. This happens as you feel less exposed if you are not talking to someone in person, but when you are forced to socialize in the real world you feel uncomfortable and awkward. As a result, their ability to socialize is diminished even more. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-cpisydfphwj-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Facebook is good for democracy Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population. Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests "offline" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4) For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can’t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows. (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn “Social media use evolving in Egypt”, DW , 04.07.2013 (2) Caroline Stauffer “Social media spreads and splinters Brazil protests”, Reuters ,June 22, 2013 (3) “Activists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government” (4)Wikipedia | computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join
There are immense problems with using Facebook to facilitate protests in oppressive regimes. Firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it would be extremely easy for government forces to disguise themselves as being protesters and find out future protest locations, thus allowing them to be one step ahead every time to crush the protest before it starts. Second of all, if all of these fail, the government could always shut down ISPs (Internet Service Providers), exactly in the way the Egyptian forces did. Their mistake was that they didn’t shut them down soon enough, but it won’t be repeated by future oppressive governments as they have the Arab Spring’s example.(1) [1] Surely, it is of great importance that people express their opinions through any means possible, even through mass protest. For this reason, over time western societies were shaped to encourage any discontented individual to express his or her view. We allowed the media to be free, it being the so called “fourth estate” due to its ability to pinpoint and underline any problem regarding government policies or actions. There is no need for Facebook or Twitter or any kind of social network to reveal any discontent in the population as we already have the media who is doing this. All the news agencies and TV stations are always looking for the sensational, looking for places where the government has failed in order to attract audience. One of the best ways of doing this is by polling and trying to reveal any group of individuals who were either discriminated or hurt by the government. As a result, if there are the necessary reasons for people to start protesting, we shouldn’t worry about people not finding out that other individuals share their views as we have the media, one of the most influential elements of the society who is actively trying to do that. (1) Marko Papic and Sean Noonan “Social Media as a Tool for Protest” ,Stratfor, February 3, 2011 [1] For more on this see ‘ This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non-democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities ’ and ‘ This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those involved in uprisings ’ |
arguana-qrel-test-science-cpisydfphwj-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Facebook has some dangerous consequences Facebook is becoming more and more integrated into our lives, but unfortunately the uncertainty of who is at the other end of the computer is proving to be a massive threat to our mental and physical safety. First of all, undoubtedly, rape is one of the most serious and unforgiveable crimes anyone can commit, as it leaves permanent physical and mental scars on women. Unfortunately, Facebook is used by troubled men to take advantage of naive women. They use Facebook in order to get in touch with their victims (often posing as someone who he is not), and after they get to know each other, after he gained the victims trust he deceives her into meeting him, a mistake she’ll regret forever. As physical integrity is one of the rights most fundamental rights, and as Facebook is facilitating the violation of this right, it is absolutely clear that these social networks are detrimental to the society.(1)(2) Secondly, another level on which Facebook is harmful is cyber bullying. It affects many adolescents and teens on a daily basis. Cyber bullying involves using technology to bully or harass another person. Sending mean Facebook messages or threats to a person, spreading rumours online or posting hurtful or threatening messages on social networking sites are just a few of the ways in which a lot of children get bullied every single day. “Despite the potential damage of cyber bullying, it is alarmingly common among adolescents and teens. According to Cyber bullying statistics from the i-SAFE foundation: Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online, and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying. More than 1 in 3 young people have experienced cyberthreats online.”(3) (1) Justin Davenport “Hunt for ‘Facebook rapists’ before they can strike again” London Evening Standard, 15 November 2012 (2) “Two men gang-rape girl in Kota after befriending her on Facebook”, Times of India, Aug 21, 2013 (3) Bullying Statistics | computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join
It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web. Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile. (1) Facebook (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation (3) Facebook |
arguana-qrel-test-science-cpisydfphwj-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Facebook has a negative impact on learning For many students, the constant flow of news, status updates, pictures and comments which comes through Facebook every single hour is proving to be a very distracting, which not surprisingly affects their educational progress. It negatively impacts learning. Studies show that students who checked in on social networks while studying had grades that were 20% lower than the grades of those who didn’t.(1) A 20% difference in grades can be the difference from being awarded a scholarship at a prestigious university at being obliged to enrol in the community college, or very easily between passing and failing. Education is one of the most important things in anybody’s life as it greatly affects future prospects. Of course socialising is important as well but we should try to avoid one negatively affecting the other. (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011 (2) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011 | computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join
On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making. If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence. Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1) (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-science-cpisydfphwj-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Facebook is bad for life satisfaction Every single day, there are millions of users sharing photographs, messages and comments across Facebook. Unfortunately, this type of “online socialization” that Facebook has initiated is nothing but detrimental to the teenagers, the most frequent users of the platform. The emotion which is most common when staying online is envy. “Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarised their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed.”(1) Not only do they get envious, but they also lose their self esteem. As a result, they have the tendency to be isolated and find it harder to socialize and make new friends due to the bad impression they have for themselves. In a poll, 53 per cent of the respondents said the launch of social networking sites had changed their behaviour - and of those, 51 per cent said the impact had been negative.(2 ) One study also backs this statistics up by finding that the more the participants used the site, the more their life satisfaction levels declined.(3) In conclusion, daily use of social networks has a negative effect on the health of all children and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders.(4) (1) “Facebook is bad for you”, The Economist, Aug 17th 2013 (2) Laura Donnelly “Facebook and Twitter feed anxiety, study finds” The Telegraph, 08 Jul 2012 (3) “Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves' “, BBC News, 15 August 2013 (4) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011 | computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join
Facebook enhances people’s lives and brings numerous advantages. Facebook provides information and social support through the creation of a network of friends; sometimes this communication will bring them into contact with material that makes them envious. The need then it to focus on the things in Facebook that are positive. It is clear that people prefer a Facebook which is concentrated around subjects of interest, friends’ updates and funny pictures rather than one which is constantly reminding them about their failures or about their acne. Therefore, users will try to block any type of harmful information, as generally you dislike being reminded about things that make you feel bad about yourself. At the end of the day, no matter of user, the accent will always be on meeting new people, having fun and making the connection with people that you already know stronger rather than searching for reasons to be envious on other people. If life satisfaction declines when using Facebook more often then users will log in to Facebook less often, but this is far from being a reason to abandon social networks entirely. Facebook is a commercial enterprise: if it is bad for people’s life satisfaction they will vote with their feet. At the moment it is clearly perceived as being positive. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-wsihwclscaaw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cyber attacks can do serious damage to the state Large scale cyber attacks can result in substantial harms to the state equivalent to those of an armed attack. Many states are dependent on flawless functioning of government and financial services online, and attacking them would cause mass disruption. For example, massive cyber attacks can cause serious disruption to economy by targeting financial, banking and commercial services; they can target government websites and steal confidential information that would compromise country's security, as was the case with USA in 2007 [10]; they could target power grids and shut down infrastructure on a massive scale across the country. All these instances cause disruption and leave the targeted country vulnerable with the government unable to operate successfully. This way, for instance, a large scale cyber attack from Russia on Georgia 2008 caused massive disruption to government, banking services, and communication within and outside of the country [11]. For these reasons USA's Pentagon decided to consider a cyber attack that 'produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause' an act of war [12]. Given the damage of possible attacks to the state, large-scale cyber attacks should be considered an act of war. | warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war
Cyber attacks might be disruptive, but they do not result in destruction, violence, injury and death the same way traditional armed aggressions do. For the majority of businesses and citizens, disruptions to online baking might be very inconvenient, but they are in no way equal to actual bombings and deaths. Targeted power grids, if they result in power outages, is mostly a discomfort in contrast to actual killings and atrocities that happen during wars. Plus, the infrastructure that really matters in a conflict, such as nuclear plants or military weaponry, cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet [13] [14]. Developed countries might be very used to amenities and comfort of online services and computers, however, a definition of armed conflicts as acts of war is much more universal because everywhere a human life is more important than any form of comfort. This is why people have a right to life and not a right to internet. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-wsihwclscaaw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks The world has developed along with the new digital medium. Lots of crucial business and government services have moved online. While the military modernised in relation to digital developments, a definition of an act of war has not caught up with it yet. It is now being suggested that the digital domain is the new realm of warfare for the 21st century. States have already been using cyber attacks in hostilities and as acts of aggression against each other. For instance, USA and Israel have released a virus Stuxnet that sabotaged parts of Iran's nuclear programme in 2010, followed by retaliatory cyber attacks by Iran on USA [7]. In the 1998 war over Kosovo the USA successfully hacked Serbia's air defence systems, which left Serbia vulnerable to air attacks [8] [9]. Cyber attacks are thus attacks that can be perpetrated by states against other states in an effort to weaken the other state, the same way armed attacks are used. Given these realities large scale cyber attacks should be considered acts of war. | warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war
An important thing about recognising something as an act of war is that it allows countries to retaliate. This includes military retaliation that causes human casualties, and political and economic sanctions, which impose suffering on the civilian population. The crucial difference between armed conflicts and cyber conflicts, is that in cyber attacks people, military or civilians, do not actually get killed. However, if we recognise cyber attacks as acts of war, this would allow an attacked state to retaliate with force resulting in human casualties. There is no way one could equate disruption in computer services to that of loss of human lives, therefore recognising cyber attacks as acts of war would be disproportional and unjust. Serbia's example that included human casualties following a cyber attack is not relevant as the cyber attack was as a part of a larger military attack. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-wsihwclscaaw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Currently there is no way to legally respond to cyber attacks by other states Currently international law on how a state can respond to cyber attacks by another state is lacking: it only covers cyber attacks during armed conflicts or those are tantamount to an armed conflict [15]. An attacked state thus has no legitimate means to respond to cyber attacks. This leaves them no option of self-defence, which is an important element in international law. Moreover, without international law regulating cyber warfare between states, there is no actual illegitimacy for cyber attacks. Despite their far-reaching and grave consequences, cyber attacks by other states do not feature heavily in the news. Few people actually know about cyber attacks between USA and Iran, which would be an unimaginable situation should these states resorted to military attacks. This apparent lack of condemnation and attention in the wider society to cyber attacks further decreases ability of the state to defend themselves or even call out an aggressor publically as there is little to fear from global opinion for such actions | warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war
While a modification to international law is needed in terms of acknowledging the gravity of cyber attacks, it does not mean that these should be considered acts of war. There are many things that states do that other states do not like and even find harmful, but these things are not considered to be equal with acts of war. Instead they are things that states need to reach agreements over to control. War is the last possible resort in such cases, there are other less drastic options such as sanctions to encourage the hostile state to desist.[27] Moreover, it is not true that cyber attacks are not condemned enough. The reason that countries generally do not engage in cyber attacks openly is because of fear of international condemnation [16]. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-wsihwclscaaw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cyber attacks are difficult to trace Cyber attacks are very difficult to trace as cyber attackers hide their digital tracks [20]. Cyber attackers also often launch attacks from poorly protected computers in other countries, which in no way implicates that the state was responsible for attacks – for instance, roughly 10% of spam comes from computers in China, but that is not Chinese spam [21]. The situation is different with traditional warfare, where there is evidence of weapons used, uniforms spotted, and reports of witnesses on site. Of course, we can expect states to lie about launching cyber attacks, thus China and the USA trade accusations about responsibility for cyber attacks, but there is no good way to test the truth. All of this means that an act of war would be judged based on incomplete and misleading information about another state’s involvement, threatening international peace and resulting in the loss of human life for no good reason. | warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war
It is unlikely that states would freely attack other states when there is unclear evidence as to who the perpetrator was. In any country that is going to engage in military action regardless of the reason there is intense public debate this would apply all the more if the reason was novel (for instance, those on interfering against Syria's Assad's regime), so we can expect public scrutiny to apply to cyberwarfare as well. Furthermore, there are also cases when cyber attacks can be traced to a particular country hostile country or even particular group within the country. This can happen when the country or groups within it themselves admit to the attack, as the Syrian Electronic Army, sympathetic to Assad's regime, cyber attacking USA in 2013 [22]. Or through intensive investigation. Tools to track cyber attacks are also constantly being perfected. For example, IPv6 (the latest version of the internet protocol) is the most effective at decreasing anonymity of cyber attackers [23]. So there are scenarios when cyber attackers are known and can be tracked, and the states have a right to treat them as acts of war. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-wsihwclscaaw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence. | warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war
A definition of aggression in traditional warfare is the act that threatens sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state [26] – a definition which is expected to be used with cyber attacks too. It is highly unlikely to see a small scale cyber attack corresponding to this definition. For instance, taking down a media web page (as the Syrian Electronic Army did) does not threaten political independence of another state in a way that taking down all the government websites, and thus rendering the state incapable of functioning, does. Recognising that a cyber attack can be an act of war, does not mean that any cyber attack, will be considered such. In practice this same ambiguity is inherent in war – a country might consider it a casus belli if another’s military chases terrorists onto its territory but this would be similarly ambiguous if there were no casualties and it was not a direct attack. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-wsihwclscaaw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors, such as cyberterrorists or hacktivists (social activists who hack), without any involvement of the actual state. For instance, in 2007 a massive cyber attack launched on Estonia was blamed on Russia due to the then on-going tensions between these two states [17]. However, the attacks on Estonia were generated from all over the world; and even those from Russia could not have been linked to the Russian authorities, who denied involvement. Similarly, a huge wave of cyber attacks dubbed GhostNet that compromised computers in 103 countries in 2009 was blamed on China, not the least for hacking computers of Tibetan authorities. However, it could not be conclusively proven that this was an attack perpetrated by the Chinese authorities [18]. Any retaliation against a state for a cyber attack can never be certain to be against the right target – the state should not be blamed for the actions of its individual citizens. | warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war
In case of non-state actors attack, many practitioners in international law agree that the state can still retaliate in self-defence if another state is 'unwilling or unable to take effective action' to deal with attacks coming from within their territory [19]. This applies to traditional warfare, but the same way it can apply to cyberwarfare. If a country is not doing anything, or not doing enough, in order to ensure cyber security and persecute cyber attackers, then the attacked country has a right to take measures against cyber attackers. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
Child grooming, and having a sexual relationship with a minor are already criminal offences. If that doesn’t stop a potential predator, breaking the ‘facebook law’ in the process is unlikely to. A teacher who intends to abuse a child will still find ample opportunity to do so. This law takes a powerful educational tool from the hands of good teachers while doing very little to stop bad ones from acting inappropriately. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A teacher-student relationship is not one between friends or equals. According to Carol Shakeshaft an expert in sexual misconduct by teachers: “[e]ducators who use social media for personal and intimate conversations and contact are not much different from those who spend their time hanging out with students at the beach. You have to ask why a teacher would do this. The honest answer is that it rarely has anything to do with student learning. [1] ” Interacting with one’s teachers the same way as with one’s friends, sharing personal information, can only erode the respect and distance that a teacher needs in order to be an authority figure and a mentor for her young charges. Even if such ‘friendships’ were entirely innocent, they would still cast enough suspicion on the teacher-student relationship to put considerable strain on the teacher’s role as educator and their ability to do the job. [1] Shakeshaft, Carol. “Using Social Media to Teach: Keep it Transparent, Open and Safe.” The New York Times. 19 December 2011. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
This law assumes the worst of teachers and frames all teacher-student interaction in a negative way. Yet so many educators have found contact through social media to be a powerful tool in facilitating learning and expanding knowledge. It may be more appropriate to establish some guidelines for how to use such media safely and professionally, rather than banning their use altogether. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Acting as a warning signal for children at risk. It is very difficult for a child to realize that he is being groomed; they are unlikely to know the risk1. After all, a teacher is regarded as a trusted adult. But, if the child is aware that private electronic contact between teachers and students is prohibited by law, the child will immediately know the teacher is doing something he is not supposed to if he initiates private electronic contact. This will therefore act as an effective warning sign to the child and might prompt the child to tell a parent or another adult about what is going on. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
Even assuming the child already knows about the law and therefore that online contact with their teachers is not allowed, which will often not be the case, a child will trust the authority figure closest to him. The teacher can easily convince the child that the rule is not that important or that their relationship is an exception. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational message. Access to a teacher’s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking [1] ? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page [2] . And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening. [1] Preston, Jennifer. ”Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online”. The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html. [2] Keneally, Megan. ”Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways.” The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The law would violate freedom of speech and association. Under this law a random person who the student has never met, even a potential predator, would be allowed to send a message via facebook or twitter. And yet a teacher doing the same thing, regardless of the content of that message, would be instantly committing an offence. Every person is allowed to speak to and associate with whomever they choose. That is a fundamental right that the government is not allowed to take away [1] . A person’s status as a teacher should not be an excuse to violate their rights. [1] Solove, Daniel. “Missouri Bans Teachers from Friending Students on Social Networking Webistes.” The Huffington Post. 02 August 2011. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
Speech can be restricted in order to protect the vulnerable groups, like children, from harm. Such a law does not attempt to keep educators from communicating or associating with their students. It merely insures such interactions happen in an appropriate manner and forum. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The law would be hard to enforce. It would be difficult to find out whether a student and teacher have had contact over the internet. If a teacher were having a relationship with a student, and this law was in effect, both parties would try to conceal it from others and from the authorities. There is then a question about how the state would find out about such behaviour. Would the state be allowed to access private facebook accounts, personal computers, or internet service provider records to make sure teachers and students are not communicating with each other? That would constitute a serious intrusion and privacy violation. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
The state wouldn’t need blanket access to teachers’ personal accounts. If suspicions arose that a teacher were breaking the law, as with all cyber-laws, the state could subpoena the information needed as proof. This law would work mainly as a deterrent for teachers to contact their students via social media. Knowing that they’d be committing an offence that could result in sanctions or losing their job, would be a strong disincentive against it. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace. Social media has become the primary way in which children interact with their peers. These interactions are largely unsupervised by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity formation [1] . With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm comes to the children involved. [1] Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert. ”College students social networking experiences on facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Pshychology. Vol. 30. 2009. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
This shift in the role of the teacher from educator to supervisor may actually negatively affect teachers. What if a teacher sees her students post pictures of themselves in inappropriate circumstances, drinking or smoking or scantily clad? What if she discovers cyber bullying? Does she have an obligation to intervene or contact the parents of the children involved? Might that do more harm than good? What if the teacher fails to act and a child gets hurt? Should the teacher be held professionally or legally responsible for that failure? Until clear guidelines are established on what exactly the responsibility of teachers would be in such a situation, the supervision of social media use by children should probably be left to parents rather than educators. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-nsihwbtiss-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Social media can be powerful educational resources. Many teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’, which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that [1] . It also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss their use and their value. [1] Khan, Salman. ”Turning the Classroom Upside Down.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 April 2011. | n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social
Even if this were a great educational tool, some kids may not have access to it. Poverty or a parent’s life style choice might leave kids without access to a computer or the internet, preventing them from joining into such online discussions. This might make them feel more isolated from their peers and leave them behind in their work. The classroom is a space where everyone can be equal and have equal access to learning. The internet may not provide equal access and may hinder some students as a result. The use of such resources may also be to the detriment of other more traditional methods. For example the teacher may feel there is less need to explain homework if anyone who has difficulties while doing the homework can simply ask over the internet. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-dssghsdmd-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable. | defence science science general house supports development missile defence
Anti-ballistic missile systems are a largely unproven technology, and still have many problems that do not make them a viable option for strategic defense, at least not at present. Furthermore, there is the excessively high cost of designing and building such a system, which has been in development for 25 years. It has cost billions of dollars over the decades, including $53 billion between 2004 and 2009, the largest single line on the Pentagon’s budget for those years. For all this, only an unproven system of questionable efficacy has been produced. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad trying to develop a technology that may never be useful. Also, even if the technology were made effective, the same technology could be used as a countermeasure by enemy countries against the interception of their missiles, making the system even less effective, if not useless (Sessler, et al., 2000). Furthermore, the system does not protect the vital interests of the United States because it angers countries like Russia, which has actually begun increasing its conventional force distributions on its Western border with the rest of Europe, and to threaten to deploy short-range nuclear missiles on its border. The political destabilization caused by the missile defense program is not worth its ephemeral benefits. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-dssghsdmd-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations (Mearsheimer, 1993). States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue. | defence science science general house supports development missile defence
It is not always within the right of a state to develop weapons and technology, since international treaties ban, for example, the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the development of weapons will be detrimental to the state that builds them, it is in their interest no to do so. In the case of national missile defense, the United States is angering several countries, particularly Russia, and potentially upsetting the balance of mutually assured destruction (Harding, 2007). Clearly more than a right to self-defense must be considered when developing new kinds of armament. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-dssghsdmd-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal With a fully functioning missile defense shield deployed, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles become obsolete, unable to ever reach their targets. This means countries’ strategic obsession with second-strike capacity, the ability to return fire with nuclear weapons should they be attacked by them (Mutually Assured Destruction), will cease to be an issue, as first-strikes are destined to be wiped out before they hit a single target. What this means is that countries with missile defense systems can feel secure without the need of retaining massive nuclear arsenals. This will alleviate the pressure to have stockpiles of warheads and will promote disarmament. Mutually Assured Destruction has become a far less secure strategy as nuclear proliferation has occurred to states with different strategic conceptions. This has been seen in the United States, which since its full adoption of the Aegis system has actively pursued a policy of reaching a new accord with Russia on nuclear arms reduction. This culminated in 2010 with the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), an accord to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half (Associated Press, 2011). This new step toward nuclear disarmament could not be politically possible in the United States without a replacement defense, which only a national missile defense system can provide. | defence science science general house supports development missile defence
Nuclear capability has historically created more stable international relations between countries, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The United States and Russia never engaged one another in open conflict during the whole span of the Cold War, for example, for fear of setting off a nuclear cataclysm neither could survive (Waltz, 1981). MAD breaks down, however, with the advent of national missile defense systems. This is due to the fact that when a state cannot guarantee its second-strike, or even first-strike capability it becomes vulnerable. Countries without missile defense systems will be defenseless against those that have them. Furthermore, as the technology is disseminated and more countries possess missile defense systems, stability decreases as it will become a gamble as to which country can more successfully counteract the offensive and defensive missile systems of the enemy. Missile defense makes the world less, not more safe. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-dssghsdmd-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating An operational national missile defense system renders nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles generally, obsolete. When a country can shoot down all enemy missiles, those weapons lose their power. The future of war, once countries have access to the technology to build missile shields, will no longer be marked by fingers held over the proverbial red button. Rather, the incentive for conflict between states armed with effective missile defenses will be to seek diplomatic solutions to problems. The technology will likely be in the hands of many nations very soon, as the United States has already provided the technology to Japan and Australia, and will be building defense batteries in Romania from 2015 (McMichael, 2009). Furthermore, even should war break out, they will necessarily be far less destructive, as they will not feature the city-leveling power of nuclear missiles. With missile defense, war will be less likely and, should it occur, less destructive. | defence science science general house supports development missile defence
Conventional war is a nasty thing, and can be just as destructive as nuclear war, if not as immediate. The threat of war is only increased with the breaking down of MAD, as countries will be able to engage one another without fear of the existential threat of nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, if many countries have access to missile defense systems they will likely be able to employ countermeasures against their enemies’ systems, bringing the chance of nuclear weapons deployment back to the fore. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-dssghsdmd-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The political consequences of the system make the world less safe Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states. | defence science science general house supports development missile defence
The United States has rarely bent the knee to international pressure with regard to issues directly affecting its security, nor should it. Not only does the United States have a right, as do all states, to defend itself against any potential foreign aggression, it is also the primary purveyor of the public good of international security, policing the sea lanes and serving as the United Nations’ primary peacekeeper (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008). This role places the United States in particular danger because it means it often contends with, and gains the enmity of, some of the most dangerous groups in the world. North Korea, for example, has been at odds with the United States for many years. Furthermore, the United States’ development of a missile defense shield has allowed it to feel safer. It is thus more willing to engage in dialogue concerning and implementation of nuclear arms reduction programs, as occurred with the recent New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia (Associated Press, 2011). This reduction is in compliance with the wishes of the United Nations, and is arguably more important for international security. Additionally, in the case of Russia, the United States has been able to reach a compromise by which Russia will not oppose its sea-based missile defenses, so long as they are not built on land on the Russian frontier. |
arguana-qrel-test-science-dssghsdmd-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely. | defence science science general house supports development missile defence
While missile defense technology still has problems that need to be worked out, its future is very promising. The most recent technology, Aegis, is far more effective in testing than its predecessors and has been deployed on a number of Navy warships and in Japan and Australia (McMichael, 2009). The technology will with time become extremely effective at stopping enemy missiles. In a world with more and more countries developing nuclear weapons, many who oppose the United States and its allies, it is imperative that the United States has an effective defense against them. A missile defense system is the most promising such defense. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.