BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government has an obligation to promote the economic redevelopment of regions hit by natural dis...

To be sure, the government has a responsibility to fix destroyed infrastructure. However, individuals should rely on their insurance to rebuild their homes. In a free society individuals make a choice about where they want to live; if they cannot afford disaster insurance, should not live in high-risk areas such as flood-plains or hurricane alleys. They should not look to government (and the taxpayers) to bail them out.
Because of its huge resources, only the federal government can help regions recover from massive dis...

Government-sponsored rebuilding efforts are notoriously inefficient and prone to fraud. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, millions of dollars of government assistance were given to “victims”, who spent the money on frivolities ranging from exotic dancers to diamond rings. Government rebuilding efforts are by their very nature bureaucratic and politically driven, and do not necessarily respond to cases of greatest need. In contrast, the private sector has a vested financial interest in efficiency and fraud prevention.
In the wake of a disaster, state and local administrations are often overwhelmed by its impact. The...

There is a difference between short-term humanitarian relief and long-term recovery. While there may be some role for the federal government in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, this should be as brief as possible. After all, if state authorities think the federal government will always bail them out, they have no incentive to adopt precautionary measures such as strict building regulations, and proper evacuation and disaster continuity plans in case of disaster. The US Constitution was intended to limit the role of the federal government, placing authority for most domestic affairs in the hands of the individual states. We should not allow Washington DC the excuse of natural (and often foreseeable) disasters as a justification for extending its already bloated reach. State and local officials will always be more responsive to local needs and concerns, and are the right people to lead rebuilding efforts.
We've been here before

The Ozone layer hole is a really bad example for saying that the threat is overblown. The ozone threat was recognised by everyone as being vital and most likely much worse than any potential global warming. It was also easy to identify what caused the problem and the problem was therefore not too difficult to fix. This resulted recognition from states that something had to be done in Vienna in 1985 and then in 1987 at the Montreal Convention CFC's the main cause of the problem were banned.[[https://debatewise.org/debates/2303-should-we-still-be-concerned-about-the-ozone-layer]] This makes this precicely the opposite of what is being argued by the proposition. The ozone is only no longer a problem because something was done to solve that problem. This has not happened with climate change. It should also be noted that global cooling was an understandable scientific forerunner to global warming. There is general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling, as the West cleaned up its act this was always going to reduce its influence (though I guess China may well be reversing that. At the time some scientists underestimated the impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that would counteract the aerosols. In short whether the planet warmed or cooled depended on what which created a bigger effect, CO2 or aerosols. It should also be noted that the scientific community were always divided on this and it was the press not scientists who hyped it. So yes global warming may be exaggerated but using these past examples to show that this is the case does not help.
We've been here before

The current threat of climate change and global warming is not the only popular environmental movement there has ever been. And like the ones I am about to explain. it has been exaggerated. In the 1970s, the trendy climate change fear was global cooling. Notably, that didn't happen. Scientists came crawling out of the woodwork to explain why the next Ice Age would in the next millennium (it hasn't) and the media and government spin-doctors were all over the idea in much the same fashion as they are now. As we can see, it hasn't happened - and in fact the opposite idea is now prevalent. The current climate change scare is just a repeat of the 1970s. Furthermore, does anyone remember chlorofluorocarbons? Those really did damage the environment: most notably the ozone layer. The papers were flooded with the idea that the ozone layer would be stripped away irreparably and we had well and truly destroyed our own planet. Except that it's now closing. Rapidly. Once again, a case of insubstantiated media hype exaggerating an environmental issue way beyond its realistic scope.
Lack of scientific understanding

Is CO2 bad for the ozone layer, as both are greenhouse gasses it seems unlikely National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ozone is also a greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere and, therefore, plays a role in Earth's climate. The increases in primary greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, may affect how the ozone layer recovers in coming years. Understanding precisely how ozone abundances will change in a future with diminished chlorofluorocarbon emissions and increased emissions of greenhouse gases remains an important challenge for atmospheric scientists in NOAA and other research centers. [[http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_ozonelayer.html]] Eruptions are of course having an impact, but such eruptions have happened ever since the earth was created. So while they have an impact it is not likely to be any different to what it was in the pre-industrial era. If there are suddenly a lot more eruptions then there may well be nothing we can do to reduce CO2 to 'preindustrial levels'. Volcanos do also tend to balance themselves out by adding particles to the upper atmosphere. Much as is the case with the above discussion of aerosols and CO2. It should be noted that we should not be bothered whether it is bad or not to the ozone layer but whether the result of that is bad for humans and ecosystems, it is unlikely the ozone layer or atmosphere cares how much CO2 it contains.
Lack of scientific understanding

Neither the media nor the politicians understand the science behind climate change theory. When a report from the government or a newspaper comes out about climate change, there are usually scientific errors throughout the arguments. For example, the CO2 emissions debate: neither the media nor politicians consider how much CO2 was thrown up by the Icelandic eruption that grounded flights. If CO2 is theoretically so bad for the ozone layer, then why was this never mentioned?
So much evidence

Except that...we don't have that proof. Scientists themselves are divided on the issue. Clearly, if they are divided, then the issue is not as clear-cut as the media and popular opinion would have us believe. Secondly, we didn't have proof for the 1970s 'global cooling' scare and, remarkably enough, the idea was eventually dropped. There is little to say that the current trend will not do the same thing. The opposition at this point provide no examples of their 'proof it's serious' and therefore, the point is invalid.
Gangsta rap encourages listeners to criminality. This is so on two levels. First, it sometimes use...

Gangsta rap encourages listeners to criminality. This is so on two levels. First, it sometimes uses language that actively incites crime, for example encouraging weapons use, spousal abuse or homophobic attacks. Secondly, it glorifies a lifestyle that is rich with imagery of criminality (e.g. gun use and drug dealing) and this sends out a subconscious but consistent message affirming criminality.
Gangsta rap is especially pernicious because it targets the youth market at a crucial, receptive ado...

Gangsta rap is especially pernicious because it targets the youth market at a crucial, receptive adolescent age. Gangsta rappers clearly seek to appeal to a receptive youthful audience, which is why so many of their images use young people and songs refer to events which would strike an especial chord with adolescents and young adults. This is irresponsible, as it represents an attempt by gangsta rappers to use their power to influence young people with a subversive, anti-societal message.
Gangsta rap is socially corrosive because it affirms negative stereotypes. Much gangsta rap revolve...

Gangsta rap is socially corrosive because it affirms negative stereotypes. Much gangsta rap revolves around the affirmation of stereotypes, such as black violence and wife beating. It purports to be social realism but in fact conveys a very selective portrayal of life which reinforces already damaging social stereotypes, of groups who are often poorly placed to campaign successfully by themselves against such portrayal. It is therefore right for government to censor such negative stereotyping, as it often does when regulating e.g. race relations or criminal acts.
The government has a moral legitimacy in censoring. People correctly look to the government as the ...

The government has a moral legitimacy in censoring. People correctly look to the government as the public arbiter of common morals, for the wider social good. It is in line with this role, therefore, for the government to take such steps as it thinks necessary to protect the public morality. This may include censorship of things which are likely to cause moral harm, an approach often manifested in e.g. film classification schemes.
Gangsta rap encourages listeners to criminality. This is so on two levels. First, it sometimes use...

Gangsta rap is a form of entertainment like any other. Some of its purveyors may use words or imagery that portrays certain criminal acts, but that is because they reflect the culture from which it spawned. Critics miss the subtleties of rap music, in which the rapper often takes on a particular persona in a song and so does not necessarily endorse the views or actions it portrays; rap fans are well aware of these ambiguities. Violence and criminality are also endemic in other forms of entertainment, for example opera and classic films often contain large-scale killing and violence. Trying to link gangsta rap to crime is singling it out amongst entertainment forms for political reasons. Would heavy metal, with its comparable content, be picked on instead if it were the music of a black urban underclass?
Gangsta rap is socially corrosive because it affirms negative stereotypes. Much gangsta rap revolve...

Gangsta rap does not employ negative stereotypes more than is reasonable. Mostly it is a form of social realism which simply tells hard truths that many policymakers would rather pretend did not exist, not least because in part they reflect those policymakers’ own failures. Even where such affirmation is concentrated in such a way as to make it an unrealistic representation of everyday life, this is no worse than the same phenomenon in other forms of popular culture e.g. soap operas.
The government has a moral legitimacy in censoring. People correctly look to the government as the ...

Government censorship is a dangerous form of statist control. Even if one accepts the argument for some limited form of government censorship to protect public morals, this needs to be very precisely and conservatively defined to avoid the slippery slope towards creeping totalitarianism. Allowing censorship of popular culture on grounds that the lyrics are mildly subversive is unwelcome as it incorporates a very expansive view of the proper ambit of government regulation. This issue is properly the concern of parents, who should take more interest in, and responsibility for, the music (and films, TV, internet use) to which their children are exposed.
Censorship would be an effective method of keeping gangsta rap out of the hands of the people who ar...

It is very difficult in practical terms to enforce such censorship on a national level. This is especially so because of the global nature of many parts of the music industry, including the cross-country appeal of artists and the international availability of media. Therefore, a ban e.g. on sale of uncensored media could possibly be circumvented by Internet-based file swapping.
The two-term limit is undemocratic. If Americans want to vote for a President again after two terms...

The two-term limit is undemocratic. If Americans want to vote for a President again after two terms, and that President is willing to serve, why should their wishes automatically be denied? The two-term convention was seized upon by a coalition of senators who wanted more power for themselves (by undermining the Presidency), FDR haters and presidential aspirants who wanted to ensure regular turnover at the top. There is no logical basis for this limitation beyond that. The effect of this scheming is damaging: it denies Americans the chance to vote for a candidate they might want to support. This amendment limits voter choice.
A strong executive is important for both philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, a st...

A strong executive is important for both philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, a strong executive is desirable as a motor for change and an efficient response to changing times The 22nd Amendment imbalances government in the legislature’s favour. In practical terms, term limits weren’t accidentally omitted from the constitution - the Founding Fathers considered, debated and rejected them. This is because the prospect of future tenure gives the Presidency leverage to get things done. Without that, Presidential terms suffer the lame duck effect, in which a President is less and less able to force his legislative agenda: for example, after Eisenhower’s overwhelming win in 1956, Congressional Republicans increasingly ignored his leadership despite his fresh and powerful mandate. The limit effectively denies the choice voters have made of coming to practical fruition: the status quo undermines second term presidents.
In times of national or international crisis, continuity and experience can be vital. Electorates c...

In times of national or international crisis, continuity and experience can be vital. Electorates can recognise this - hence FDR’s third and fourth term wins during the Second World War. The 22nd Amendment automatically denies the possibility of democratically approved continuity. This is particularly worrying given that thousands of jobs in the executive branch of government change hands every time a new President is elected, something which is not so common in the civil service of other countries. The opposition must show why the idea of continuity in a crisis is less important than the principle of a two-term limit.
If the two term rule is aimed at preventing an entrenched set or clique, then why permit Vice Presid...

If the two term rule is aimed at preventing an entrenched set or clique, then why permit Vice Presidents and other close associates of a President run, as with the Reagan-Bush presidencies, where the new administration retained the majority of key personnel (including cabinet members)? In truth, all the problems the 22nd Amendment supposedly combats - a clique or group dominating politics - happen anyway. But these are people that have been voted for - as a successful third term president would be. It’s not as if suddenly the rules of government change in a third term: all the checks and balances in place for the first two remain. A third term president is no more innately powerful than a second.
The two-term limit is undemocratic. If Americans want to vote for a President again after two terms...

The Presidency is different from almost any other kind of office in the US. Senators and Congressmen don’t have term limits because their voices are balanced by opposition in their respective chambers; the President has no comparable counterbalance. The nearest analogy would be with state governors - many of which have term limits, too. This is because the role of the individual in such ‘head of executive’ functions is of such importance that pure democracy - unlimited terms - must be tempered by the fear of ‘elective dictatorship’ - a strong President using the undoubted advantages of incumbency to win election after election. America’s beginnings are based in a rejection of monarchy and of cronyism: the 22nd Amendment stops this from coming about by other means.
A strong executive is important for both philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, a st...

Term limits didn’t have to be mentioned in the Constitution because from Washington onwards the convention of two term maximum Presidencies was respected; only when it was broken did a rule need to be put in place. The President’s strength is dependent upon many things - personal popularity, his relationship with his party, which party controls Congress, events abroad, etc: the potential of a third term is inferior to all of these as a tool for making others help the presidential program. In any case, the power of potential future office primarily draws its strength from potential patronage - a nepotistic consideration which, though inevitable, should not be credited with such importance that a third term should be allowed to encourage it.
In times of national or international crisis, continuity and experience can be vital. Electorates c...

Since the end of the Second World War, the CIA and the White House administration have conducted bipartisan briefings for presidential candidates of both parties, irrespective of the incumbent’s allegiance, to ensure continuity. The actual presence of the same individual is far less important than the knowledge and understanding this scheme guarantees. The ‘have experience or not have experience’ challenge presented is a false dichotomy.
If the two term rule is aimed at preventing an entrenched set or clique, then why permit Vice Presid...

Whilst checks and balances do indeed remain in place, the longer a specific individual is in place (and has the potential to continue to be in place in the future), the greater the chance that jobs and positions are farmed out to supporters of that man, that regional elections are fixed to ensure personal support for him nationally: the longer the tenure, the greater the chance for corruption. The whole point of the two term convention, which developed into the 22nd Amendment, was that no one man is greater than the office of President - that even Washington would not remain in power, despite the fact that people wanted him to.
Patents Cost Lives, our Plan Saves Them

Health Activist at UNGASS It is obscene that corporations can be given patents to make monopoly profits at the expense of .. lives. Something has to give. And that something should be the patent regime, and not those hundreds of millions of lives Pharmaceutical companies are undeniably driven by profit. They use patents to secure monopolies, thus enabling them to charge as high a price as they can which be afforded by a sizable market segment, the west. However, these prices are prohibitively expensive for poorer countries and thus profits made by patents often come at the expense of millions of lives. In the poor world, the patenting system every day puts medicines beyond the reach of sick people. In 2001, 40 pharmaceutical giants took the South African government to court because they wanted it to stop producing generic copies of an AIDS drug, just as effective, for $100 a year to save their dying citizens.They were demanding it pays the full $10,000 a year to buy the branded version – or nothing. The companies claimed that the trial was not about “denying accessibility” of the medicines to those who need it but that it is about the rule of law. But what use is this when 4.2 million South Africans who are afflicted with Aids will suffer or die?[[http://www.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119675.html%5D%5D When in 1996,HAART, a therapy that delays the onset of AIDS became available, death rates fell by 84% in rich countries. One would assume that soon after, people in developing countries would benefit from the miraculous drug too, yet only 8,000 people in Sub Saharan Africa were able to afford it by 2001. The numbers are not getting better. By 2030, it is estimated 50 million people will need new drugs, which are currently prohibitively expensive, to stay alive. What do we do? Follow our plan and bypass patents. After the company develops a cure and gets the prize, any company will be allowed to make the drug for those in n
Why we save more lives

The prop, in trying to differentiate between patent profits and their "reward pool" seem to think they're providing extra incentives to scientists from universities and research institutions, therefore increasing innovation. This is wrong. Firstly, many scientists work for pharmaceutical companies directly (getting paid very large bonuses for developing new treatments). Secondly, scientists at universities and research institutions are paid by pharmaceutical companies to undertake research for them. Why is this important? It means that scientists are actually harmed under the proposition's model, not helped. When patents are removed, pharmaceutical companies can no longer earn monopoly profits. Secondly, the proposition's model is not even necessary. If their problem is that a minority on the margins cannot afford the life-saving medicine, wouldn't it be far cheaper to simply provide the funds required to purchase them? It wouldn't require a $348 billion burden on the world; this is an unrealistic approach, Where would it come from? Most nations are in debt[[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html]] they won’t give up more money they don’t have. The prop want to say that any amount of money is justified to save lives, but if that money could be spent on saving lives, it is actually wasting lives, not just money. There are more killers than illness, and more ways to treat them than drugs. In addition, if companies with patents charge very high prices, that creates a market for cheaper drugs for that illness, so other companies can move into that market. This means innovation is encouraged, there are more drugs and the price isn't an issue in the long term. Under the prop's model it is necessary that generics are more profitable than new drugs for a company to produce, or else none of them will, instead going for the massive prize for new drugs. If generics are more popular, no new drugs will be produced, only copies