BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cheques are a thing of the past, direct debits have taken over

The Payments Council made an announcement to the effect that by 2018 cheques would be dead. Making paper payments is no longer viable in the 21st Century. There are very few shops that accept cheques these days. Compare this dwindling figure to the number of shops which are making provisions so that they can take card behind their tills. Even local corner shops are implementing card technology. The paying of bills used to be a matter of sending cheques in the post, now people set up direct debits to pay for their bills and they are encourage to do so by being offered discounts on the bill. This form of payment is quicker and more reliable. The same arguments can be made for completely replacing cash with card payments.
We have become more acclimatised to card payments

The internet has been a major factor in us moving away from cash riddled society. We now shop online and are very much used to the process. From furniture, to holidays, to cloths to electrical goods, we have seen first hand how easy it is to buy online. This has drawn us in to this form of cashless shopping. Then in 2004, the Government rolled out national chip and pin. This was the process of taking your card to a check out and using your pin number to make a payment as opposed to signing a receipt. This once again made us more partial to paying by card. With our attitude towards card payments becoming increasingly more amicable, eventually it is inevitable that we will do away with the time consuming cash and start using card for every form of payment.
Do away with cash and you do away with crime

If we did not have cash, then the black market would suffer. People would not be able to make sly cash payments in back alleys for drugs and other illegal products. They would also not want to use the card payment system as this is traceable. It is the intractability of cash that makes the authorities want to get rid of it. Drug payments could be followed on card. The tax man can follow payments on card. With no cash, there would be no cash in hand jobs. Therefore, every penny earned in the UK would be counted in our tax system. The fact that these two effects of abandoning cash are beneficial to both society and the authorities, it is more than likely that such development would go ahead.
An employer can state that spent convictions are to be disclosed

This is an exception to the general rule; as indicated by the name of that order 'Exceptions'. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) states that even if asked an applicant does not have to disclose spent convictions [[s4(2) ROA 1974]]. The order cited opposite was placed there in order to ensure that employers could ask and be required to be told about spent convictions if there was a need to assess a persons suitability for a specific role which involves a great deal of trust. This is not a general trust between employer and employee but in specific roles in which sensitive data and vulnerable people are dealt with. In order for employers to require the disclosure of spent criminal convictions they must state when asking the question that an exception to the ROA applies and they must state which exception that is[[ROA (Exceptions) Order 1974, Regulation 3(a)]].
An employer can state that spent convictions are to be disclosed

If on an application form an employer states that spent convictions are to be disclosed then a person is required to disclose such convictions[[ROA 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 SI1975/1025; Regulation 3 (1)(a)]]. Employment is deemed to be a position of trust and therefore a person is liable if they do not disclose such information when asked. This is the common sense position and seeks to ensure that the employer knows the background of the person they are taking on.
Provision of care services requires such disclosure

Whilst this may be what the law requires, it is inherently unfair and contradictory to state that people are 'rehabilitated' once a certain period has passed, which is the general position in the ROA, then to go on to say that in fact, the person is not rehabilitated when it comes to certain professions. Either a person is rehabilitated or not. We should not define someone as rehabilitated only for certain mundane professions only to be classified as not rehabilitated for other professions.
Provision of care services requires such disclosure

Any office or employment concerned with the provision of care services which enables a person to have access to vulnerable adults is entitled to require such information is disclosed to them[[ROA (Exceptions) Order 1975; Schedule I Part II Regulation 12]]. Upon this information being given an employer would be entitled to treat that person as other than rehabilitated and use the information to assess the suitability of that person for the job position [[ROA (Exceptions) Order 1975; Regulation 4]].
the information does not appear on the basic criminal record check

Upon making an application to the Criminal Record Bureau, an individual can pay to have their criminal record disclosed to their employer by way of a certificate. The Criminal Record Bureau states that their aim is to "help protect children and vulnerable adults by providing a first-class service to support organisations recruiting people into positions of trust" [[http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/]] With this being the objective of the Government lead organisation, surely the level of disclosure they see fit is at the adequate level. Their basic level of disclosure, to which all employers are entitled to request, spent convictions are not disclosed. Therefore, there is no reason for applicants to disclose spent criminal convictions on job applications.
s4(1) Rehabilitation Offenders Act 1974

Whilst the law may allow an applicant not to disclose their conviction, it may actually be to their benefit to disclose such spent convictions. If an employer subsequently finds out that the employee does have a conviction, even if it is spent, it will result in a significant lack of trust in the relationship. This could mean that the employer would try and find any reason to dismiss the employee, or make their working lives untenable.
s4(1) Rehabilitation Offenders Act 1974

This section states that a person who has served their sentence in prison or otherwise, and the specified rehabilitation period has passed, the person shall be counted as rehabilitated and shall be treated as a person who had never been convicted of that offence. Given that the person is to be treated as if the conviction never occurred, there is no need for the applicant to disclose their spent criminal conviction. Further to this, s4(2) states that if a question on the application form asks about convictions, the applicant is under no duty to disclose their conviction.
Using a mobile phone in the car is unnecessary - everyone coped without mobiles ten years ago, and l...

Using a mobile phone in the car is unnecessary - everyone coped without mobiles ten years ago, and little else about life has changed radically enough to make them indispensable, so there is no real loss of personal liberty in having your ability to communicate restricted in this way. If there is a pressing need to make a call, then drivers can always pull over and dial from a parked vehicle. The ban will also protect drivers from pressure from bosses who call them while on the road, effectively requiring their employees to risk their lives for the company.
The state’s authority to control the actions of drivers is already accepted, for example, through sp...

The state’s authority to control the actions of drivers is already accepted, for example, through speed limits, rules against drink driving, etc. Dangerous driving meets the classic liberal test by endangering not just the individual but others, including drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and so society has a right to intervene to protect the innocent. A new law signals social unacceptability, and will send a message to drivers; the New York ban has already been highly effective.
Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...

Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.
Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in ter...

Hands-free mobile phone sets, with earpieces and voice-automated dialling are the answer. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.
Existing laws are inadequate; driving without due care and attention is a limited charge that can be...

There is no need for a specific law relating to mobile phone use; almost every country has laws against driving without due care and attention. This means that if someone is driving dangerously through inappropriate use of their mobile phone, then the police can already prosecute them. Rather than introduce a new law, the police should instead enforce the existing rules more thoroughly. This could be coupled with energetic advertising campaigns to warn people of a range of potentially dangerous driving habits.
New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. ...

Banning mobile phone use by drivers will be unenforceable, as often cases will just be a policeman’s word against a driver’s. This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.
Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...

Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.
Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in ter...

Research shows very little difference between using a handheld and a hands-free mobile phone, in terms of impaired concentration and worse reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal.
The Skill

Photography shows how far mankind has come. A far cry from painting on cave walls with a stick and animal blood, humans have created a machine that captures life as it happens. Furthermore, vast amounts of digital software - as well as traditional darkroom techniques - have been developed to add further artistic flair to the images they capture. Professional Photographers still have to work hard to develop the skill to produce emotion and to convey a meaning in their works. Photography is is as much of an art as painting.
More than just Vision

Hyper-realistic paintings aim to reproduce life as accurately as possible. Movements such as Pictorialism, in the area of photography, aimed to bring it firmly into the category of 'art'. A wide variety of techniques were employed, from extensive use of filters to etching prints with fine needles, in order to make the resultant images resemble sumptuous oil paintings. A photograph can be taken in an instant - a painting can take years to finish. A lucky, candid shot can reveal more about a person's inner self than they even realised themselves, whereas a posed portrait will simply show the angle they want the world to see.
A maximum working week would improve the quality of work done. If workers worked shorter hours or f...

A maximum working week would improve the quality of work done. If workers worked shorter hours or fewer days, when they did work they would likely be more alert and make fewer mistakes. This would significantly reduce the “Friday afternoon” syndrome of sloppy (and sometimes dangerous) work resulting from workers’ tiredness. By capping the amount of time they spend in the workplace, workers would be given better opportunities to develop their professional or personal interests outside it. This should result in a better educated, healthier, more rounded and hence more globally competitive workforce.
A maximum working week provides protection for workers. At the moment, many workers feel pressure, ...

State regulation of working hours is an intrusion on individuals’ private freedom. The employer-worker contract is an example of private contracting. The worker has the right to deploy his labour as he sees fit, independently of state regulation (N.B. a modified version of this argument may be needed to defend against the fact that almost all states regulate some workplace practices). \ For self-employed workers, there is no good reason for the government to dictate how long they can work: this is a matter for them, as the work will be for their own benefit. Self-employed work is often very intensive, for example at the start of a business, and so a maximum working week would act as a brake on entrepreneurial activity. \
Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment. Because some workers currently work m...

The idea that reducing working hours will create jobs is part of the 'lump of labour' fallacy and does not stand up to scrutiny, either in economic theory or in practice. In reality, either companies will seek to drive down real wages or overall economic activity will be reduced. In a globalised economy, it is unrealistic to make labour policy on a national basis. Unless competing economies implement similar rules, any restrictions on economic production may simply encourage the relocation of that production to an economy that is not encumbered with the same rules. This would be exacerbated by the fact that these less-regulated economies would be touting their low regulatory environment as a positive advantage in a bid to attract inward investment.
A maximum working week would be economically beneficial. A maximum working week would improve produ...

A maximum working week would be economically damaging. Many business have the same fixed costs regardless of the hours worked. A maximum working week would be economically damaging, since it would either force them to spread these fixed costs less efficiently across a smaller output, or in order to retain their output they would need to increase their workforce and so labour costs. This would particularly affect small businesses, again stifling entrepreneurial activity. A fixed maximum also reduces business flexibility. Even if employers do not habitually use their workers for overly long periods, it can be beneficial for them to retain the capacity to do so when needed, e.g. if a large customer order needs to be filled in a short time.
A maximum working week would improve the quality of work done. If workers worked shorter hours or f...

It is difficult practically to enforce a maximum working week. Some jobs simply cannot be done within a defined time framework, because for example they involve a prolonged time at sea or a process which once started must be completed in full. It is therefore impractical to impose a blanket maximum working week. It is also practically very difficult and expensive to monitor compliance with a maximum working week and punish non-compliance. This is especially so where both employer and worker favour a longer working week and so it is mutually beneficial to disguise the extra hours worked from the governmental authorities.\ These enforcement difficulties would encourage the black labour market. This is because some people would have to continue to work a high number of hours anyway (for example, for economic reasons) and so making this illegal will simply force them to move the marginal element of their working practices into the invisible sector. This is undesirable for several reasons: as well as criminalising otherwise law-abiding citizens, it removes them from the protection of health and safety regulations, and deprives the government of tax revenue.\
A maximum working week provides protection for workers. At the moment, many workers feel pressure, ...

A maximum working week provides protection for workers. At the moment, many workers feel pressure, and indeed may well be pressured, to work longer hours or more days than they want to, because their job security and livelihood can depend on their willingness to meet managerial demands. They would welcome a reduced working week but are in a poor position even to ask for it. Many workers (especially unskilled or semi-skilled ones) lack negotiating power with their employer since, in the capitalist system, they are essentially transferable units of labour. Government therefore has a moral legitimacy in acting on workers’ behalf to protect their generic interests, and the right not to be forced to work long hours is a good example of this.
A maximum working week would be economically beneficial. A maximum working week would improve produ...

A maximum working week would be economically beneficial. A maximum working week would improve productivity. Inevitably there are some inefficiencies in any economic process. Although a maximum working week would not remove all these, the event of its introduction and the fact that it would focus people’s minds on tangible achievements within a limited working time would improve productivity. It is worth noting that French workers (already subject to a 35 hour maximum week) are significantly more productive than their unrestricted UK counterparts. Such rules also affirm the role of business as a socially beneficial partnership that respects workers rather than as an exploitative system which takes advantage of them. This would provide a positive affirmation of the social element of business as well as boosting productivity through more cooperation between management and workforce.
Counter point to Columbia's reply to superior criminal responsibility

About "Barrios Altos Massacre case", Opp states that it doesn't correspond, but: 1. Indeed, in the attack was involved the Peru Government in a anti-terrorist mission. But as in Irak the Saddam Hussein's Government is considered a terrorist one, in Peru the Fujimori's Government is also considered like that. 2. This case proved that it doesn't matter if the action is taken by the government for a "reasonable reasons", they are responsible. 3. The IACHR estableshid in the sentence: IACHR [...]4. To find that Amnesty Laws [...] are incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, lack legal effect. [...] 6. To order that reparations shall be established by mutual agreement between the defendant State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims, [...] 4. There is, in fact, a different between "Costs" and "Reparations". The first are related to the expenses fo the procedures, and the second to the compensation to the victims. Concerning reparations, the courts decides, among others orders: IACHR [...]2. That the State of Peru must pay: a) US$175.000,00 [...] to each of the following surviving victims[...] 3. That the State of Peru must grant the beneficiaries of the reparations their healthcare expenses [...] 4. That the State of Peru must provide the beneficiaries of the reparations the following educational benefits [...] a) scholarships through the Instituto Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo to study in Academies [...] 5. In that order of ideas, we have discarded what Opp have stated in this point. About "Plan de Sánchez Massacre case", the Massacre was commited not only by military forces, but also by paramilitaries ones. And the State was found responsable not only by the actions of the first. In both cases, there was a lack of garanties in prosecution
Counter point to 'Preventing poornes and psyscological problems'

The proposition has made two sub-points under this head. therefore we are posting this point as a separate reply so as to avoid any confusion Firstly relating to Internal displacement. The argument that people move from villages to cities following terrorist attacks is incorrect. In fact, it should ideally be the other way round. The aim of a terrorist attack is to have the maximum impact and create fear. This can be done by attacking a major city, rather than a remote village. For example, all recent terrorist activities in India have been carried out in the major cities of New Delhi, Mumbai, Pune etc. The proposition also submits that people who move to cities do not have their required documents and are therefore denied jobs. This argument is completely baseless. What sort of logic dictates that just because a person is from a village he/she does not possess their documents? The second point raised is that there should be psychological compensation and something called 'compensation of truth'. If by this the proposition means that the government should hold the hands of the victims of a terrorist attack, it is absurd to the point of hilarity. All governments condemn attacks of this nature. The persons behind these acts are caught and justice is done. Our most worthy opponents fear that the population will hide in a little dark corner being depressed for the rest of their lives. This is a baseless argument. There are examples of widows of police officers who died in the Mumbai massacre who have led marches and protests, demanding that the terrorists be brought to book. This requires great mental strength Also, it is yet again submitted that the proposition is not at all clear in its definition of 'compensation'. According to American law compensation can be defined as, "A pecuniary remedy that is awarded to an individual who has sustained an injury in order to replace the loss caused by said injury." [[http://www.answers.com/topic/compensation]] If this definition is to be followed then the entire concept of 'psychological compensation' goes out of the window. Thus this entire argument falls Also in the Plan de Sánchez massacre case, opponents have chosen to mislead and misrepresent the facts, in this decision as well, the court ordered for COSTS AND NOT COMPENSATION and once again, the atrocities were committed by the Guatamela army, i.e., subordinates of the government thus once again invoking the principle of “superior criminal responsibility." Therefore to summarize in a nutshell providing compensation for terrorism is equivalent to make the government be held responsible for acts of its citizens, no matter how heinous they may be where which defies all logic as such. Even if their argument is to be accepted to pay the compensation to victims the alternative model what we suggest is setting up of international fund which was even backed by the UN in 2008.