BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unless the United States moves to end agricultural subsidies, there is no chance that a global trade...

Unless the United States moves to end agricultural subsidies, there is no chance that a global trade deal can be struck. Already the Doha round of the World Trade Organization (supposedly a priority for the Bush Administration) is years behind schedule, stuck in acrimonious bickering between the US, the EU and a developing world bloc. Any deal will require developed countries to greatly reduce their agricultural protection, including subsidies to their farmers, in exchange for market opening for a wide range of goods and services worldwide. Such a deal is hugely in the wider economic interest of the United States, as more open markets would allow American companies to compete more effectively in many countries where tariffs and other protectionist barriers now restrict them. By promoting greater prosperity in the developing world, it would also benefit the United States, as wealthier consumers will wish to buy high-value goods and services from US companies, boosting our own prosperity in turn. Such a prize is within our grasp, but it will require brave leadership from the US administration.
Government intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values of free-trade advocated by the USA...

A subsidized farming industry helps to create the most stable farming infrastructure possible. Agricultural commodities are subject to great swings in price due to weather conditions and market volatility. Without government support to smooth the impact of market fluctuations, huge numbers of American farmers would be pushed into bankruptcy, forced off the land and into dependence on welfare. This would have knock-on effects on the whole economy of the US heartland, and would devastate the social structure of small-town America. Unless the United States is happy to stand by while this happens, we must continue to support farm programmes which guarantee farmers a decent return on their labor and give American agriculture a secure future.
Subsidies are expensive and represent a burden on the American citizen as taxpayer and consumer. Th...

For the reasons given above, market prices for agricultural produce can vary greatly from year to year. Without government support to smooth out fluctuations, consumers would sometimes be faced with price spikes when harvests were poor (or because many farmers had been driven out of business, reducing supply). As family income is pretty fixed, price spikes for basic foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, meat, beans, dairy products and even beer could really affect the standard of living enjoyed by many Americans. Even if such high prices only occurred occasionally, their possibility would create general uncertainty about future levels of disposable income. This could be very damaging to consumer confidence, and so to the economy as a whole.
Subsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally by maintaining the prices of goods at...

The United States is not responsible for the international poverty caused by agricultural subsidies. Even if the USA were to stop funding its farming industry, other developed nations practices would continue to distort international markets. The European Union subsidizes its own farmers $100 billion annually for produce exports, compared to only $44 billion in the USA. Farmers in both Norway and Switzerland receive approximately 70% of their farm revenues from government payments, compared to less than 20% for US farmers. Japan protects its farmers with a whole array of nationalist subsidies and tariffs. Any unfortunate effects on small country farmers will not cease if the United States were to abandon its subsidizing practices. Indeed, the USA’s share of world food exports has been either flat or falling for over 25 years, so it is unfair to blame US agricultural support programmes for the current problems of developing countries.
Subsidies are bad for the environment for three reasons. First, because whenever local producers ar...

Food is a unique good in the sense that it is essential to sustain life. The government should not gamble on this important industry surviving such elements as a fluctuating market-place and environmental change without federal support. Federal agricultural programmes are necessary to promote American self-sufficiency in food stuffs - vital for national security and the well-being of a country’s citizens. During a time when the US is involved in a massive ongoing war against terror, this food security is imperative. Subsidies are also helping us to make progress towards another form of self-sufficiency, as federal support for ethanol production (largely derived from maize grown in the US cornbelt) is contributing to reduced dependence upon imported oil.
Reform will never effectively turn the tables in subsidy distribution. Large-scale agri-businesses ...

Even adamant anti-subsidy advocates agree that abolishing current financial assistance will not be beneficial in the end. Reform of current subsidizing policies is better than eliminating it altogether. Small farmers are in dire need in the USA, and eliminating the percentage of their income derived from federal support would have devastating effects to the smaller American farms. Legislation that has been tabled such as the Rural America Preservation Act and the Grossley-Dorgan Bill needs to be passed. These and other policies would help by capping the amount given to the largest agricultural corporations, and fix the loopholes that allow them to receive unjust amounts of the subsidy pie. These policies will also help conservation and preservation of pristine natural resources, while keeping current farmland healthy, but not encouraging monoculture, something current subsidies do.
Domestic subsidization of agriculture harms international human right to livelihood. Agriculture is...

American food subsidies are actually good for the developing world. The kinds of food stuffs which are exported to the poorer countries are staples like wheat, maize, milk products and sugar. Our subsidies ensure that these basic foods are available more cheaply to consumers in poor countries than they would be otherwise, so their limited incomes can go further and they can eat better. Nor are these exports undermining local producers - often the produce we sell in the developing world grows better in the USA than it does in their local conditions. And in any case, the key to their development doesn’t lie in producing such capital-intensive commodity crops, but in exporting labor-intensive produce in which they have a comparative advantage, such as prepared vegetables, palm oil, cut flowers and cocoa.
Unless the United States moves to end agricultural subsidies, there is no chance that a global trade...

Agricultural producers in the USA recognize the gains that could be made in a successful Doha round, but there are also risks to be considered. Any worthwhile deal would have to balance the loss of income to farmers (through a reduction in federal support for agriculture) with the profits to be made through increased exports as tariffs fall internationally. Such a deal cannot be achieved if the US administration “gives away the farm” by unilateral cuts in farm support - such a move would remove any leverage the USA has in the negotiations and would provide no incentive for our competitors to reduce their own subsidies and tariffs. Our best position is to keep our existing programmes of agricultural support until other countries make binding commitments to a WTO settlement from which all can benefit.
Government intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values of free-trade advocated by the USA...

Government intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values of free-trade advocated by the USA. Our complex series of agricultural subsidies, price supports, regulations and protective tariffs means that farming in the US functions as a command economy - in effect, we have a socialist agricultural system. Furthermore, such subsidies violate international agreements negotiated and signed by the US, such as the World Trade Organization, and the North America Free Trade Act (NAFTA). This tarnishes US credibility.
Subsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally by maintaining the prices of goods at...

Subsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally by maintaining the prices of goods at an artificial level that does not reflect the cost of production. When these subsidized exports compete on the global market, agricultural companies can sell product for less than production cost. For example, the onion industry in Jamaica once thrived on the domestic level. However, thanks to the artificial economics created by US subsidies, American corporations have flooded the Jamaican market with cheap produce and put the local onion producers out of business. \ Artificial pricing also slants international trade against farmers in poor countries. For example, it is much cheaper to grow cotton in West Africa than in the USA. This should enable West African farmers to export their cotton profitably, to the benefit of both themselves and their countries’ developing economies. However, American subsidies encourage overproduction in the United States, and allow US cotton farmers to sell their fiber abroad at a discount. Both these effects drive down the global price of cotton and remove the best chance the West African states have of trading their way out of poverty. \
Subsidies are bad for the environment for three reasons. First, because whenever local producers ar...

Subsidies are bad for the environment for three reasons. First, because whenever local producers are put out of business, as in the case of the Jamaican onion growers, that country is then reliant on imports for produce previously available domestically. Local produce is always going to be more sustainable than imported produce, which inevitably involves many air-miles and needless pollution.\ The second reason subsidies harm the environment is because they encourage large-scale production of specialized produce, known as monoculture. Monoculture is when enormous amounts of land are devoted to one single crop, e.g. wheat, maize or soybeans. This is bad for the land because it absorbs from the earth all the nutrients necessary for that crop, rapidly exhausting the soil. Monoculture is encouraged by our present system of subsidies, but damages the environment which makes this practice unsustainable without the enormous application of artificial fertilizers, which are both wasteful in terms of the energy required to produce them, and damaging to the environment in terms of water-pollution from run-off.\ Third, subsidies encourage intensive agricultural production in unsuitable areas. Examples of this include the ploughing up of prairie areas naturally better suited to pastoral grazing, and the cultivation of water-intensive fruit and vegetables in naturally arid areas of southern California that requires wasteful and environmentally damaging irrigation schemes to be viable.\
Exerts a preference for conventional families

Increasingly we are confronted with alternative family structures which fail to meet the criteria for the traditional family model of two parents and two children. In a step-family the restriction on children may prove problematic should the new couple wish to add their own children to their existing families. Similarly, if a person enters a relationship with someone who has previously had two children, they will have to find someone else with whom to start a family. It would be increasingly difficult to enforce the limit in the case of multiple births; serious moral concerns would be raised if a woman was forced to select one or two children from those born.
Children would be born aware of ecological issues

If such freedom is diminished at the hands of the state, people are far less likely to react willingly. Awareness of the issues is not enough; something must be done about them. The theory that children would be inclined from an early age to take action against global warming would require much explanation and encouragement from their parents; this cannot be relied upon as parenting techniques and educational backgrounds vary on a huge scale. Particularly young children tend to lack the capacity to appreciate the degree of environmental concerns.
Personal responsibility would improve in general

Responsibility is likely to decrease, particularly as individual freedom is limited. Currently people may have as many children as they like; it is expected they will care for them all. However, if there was a strict limit on reproduction, rates of abortion would be likely to increase as people feared penalties for exceeding their allowance. Arguably this would just lead to immoral behaviour and diminution of personal values. Furthermore, by having two children rather than four, couples may feel they have already made a significant contribution to the environment.
There would be fewer unwanted children in the world

Although adoption could not be facilitated, families will not necessarily live in harmony. Unwanted children may in fact be worse off living with parents who do not want them, as is evident from the mounting number of child abuses cases. While parents will be forced to take responsibility and it does not seem unreasonable to require them to care for their own children, the children themselves may benefit from living with foster parents or those unable to have children of their own.
Replaces autonomy with state interference

Given some of the circumstances in which many British inhabitants find themselves today, it would perhaps do no harm to be governed by paternalism. Though this may be interpreted as unwelcome control, if such restrictions were implemented they would be backed up by a worthy justification. If the measure proved effective it could perhaps be considered making its application temporary, so as not to infringe on individual freedom. However, it must be noted that an individual cannot enforce any right to reproduce; another person is required who is under no obligation to consent.
Replicates China’s ‘one child’ policy

The ever-present threat of global warming is increasing; people are facing the facts that it may actually confront them in their lifetime. Campaigns in defence of the environment continue and while most people are willing to take some action, they will not go out of their way. It is difficult to enforce eco-friendly behaviour and so available options are somewhat limited. China’s policy has proved successful so far; in 2007 it had prevented an estimated 400 million births. (2) The implementation of a similar policy in a sophisticated, democratic country would have far less disastrous results. (2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7000931.stm
Overpopulation poses environmental hazards

While we can combat our negative impact on the environment by recycling, walking and using electricity efficiently, this is only worthwhile to an extent. As long as we insist on continued procreation, the problem is only going to exacerbate. Each child born will potentially drive, take holidays and shop, all of which contribute vastly to the ecological footprint when put in perspective with the rest of the population. Although people can be persuaded to limit their extravagance as the issue increases in reality, it would be unreasonable to ban cars and aeroplanes altogether and insist people bought their clothes second-hand. Furthermore, it would put entire industries out of business, simply shifting the environmental burdens to further aggravate our economic crisis.
Children would be born aware of ecological issues

By entitling families to only two children, we would be secure in the knowledge that there are only so many of us capable of causing negative effects to the environment and from a utilitarian perspective, that there are fewer people to be affected when global warming hits. If all families had two children who were aware of the justifications for their existence in pairs, people would be conditioned from birth to preserve the environment. The extent of the problem would be epitomised by the limited sizes of families.
Personal responsibility would improve in general

If having less children will encourage individuals to take responsibility for the carbon footprint, they will be forced to do so for other aspects of daily life. If families are restricted to two children, the repeated incidents of teenage pregnancy can be addressed; perhaps flippant attitudes would diminish if there was a risk of only being eligible to have one or no children in adulthood. In addition, the quality of living standards will be upgraded as the job market will be freed up consequent to a smaller working population and state benefits will far less frequent, leaving money in the budget to contribute to other causes.
There would be fewer unwanted children in the world

A person’s lack of existence equals a person’s non-use of environmental resources. The rule that people could only have two children would have to be absolute; parents who had exceeded the limit or were unwilling to exercise their parental responsibility towards a child (intending to have two more) would not be able to give their children up for adoption. Doing so would simply increase the number of people in the world, as parents could then theoretically go on to produce two children. As a result there would be more homes for children and less work for the authorities.
Replaces autonomy with state interference

People have come to expect democracy and take their freedom for granted; the right to found a family is protected under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be extreme to impose such a dramatic level of control simply for the protection of the environment, which is a continuing but not imminent threat. In a society which frowns upon China’s ‘one child’ policy, it would only be hypocritical to engage in a similar practice. Heroic measures have been imposed to save lives and bring more into the world; it would be a conflict of ideals to prevent life.
Replicates China’s ‘one child’ policy

In an effort to alleviate social, economic and environmental problems, China resorted to a permanent policy of limiting couples to one child. Though allowing two children is more lenient and will provide children with better social skills, by limiting their number we are condoning the activities in China. The policy has arguably caused corrupt behaviour, with forced abortion, female infanticide and parents killing their own daughters. Thousands of baby girls are abandoned each year on rubbish heaps and in orphanages where they die of neglect. It seems entirely incomprehensible why a democratic country such as the UK would even consider following in China’s footsteps. (1) (1) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-onechild-policy-doctors-discover-23-sewing-needles-in-womans-head-402091.html
Acceptance of state control in one area will extend it to all areas

If we acquiesce in the implementation of such an intrusive measure, there is nothing to suggest the state will leave it at that. Our freedom and autonomy would rapidly disappear as the government would no doubt be tempted to impose further restrictive regimes to tackle other issues. We may be limited on the number of cars and houses we own; it may be decided what we spend our money on and what career paths we follow. To put an allowance on the number of children we can have is a situation unimaginable in our society.
Overpopulation poses environmental hazards

Limiting the number of children is not the answer. Such a level of state control and interference in private lives may cause a repugnance to solving further societal issues. If all nuclear families contained a maximum of four, many would feel they had wholly fulfilled their duty to the environment by undertaking such a sacrifice. The current majority of British inhabitants tend to feel some sense of responsibility, evidenced from simple gestures such as walking to work and reusing plastic carrier bags. In suggesting such a drastic measure it seems the government underestimates the current extent of the public’s co-operation.
The ban will give powers to police to crack down on the murky underworld of forced marriages

Forced marriages are difficult to detect because the physcial/mental coercion does not usually coincide with the wedding itself and even if you do find evidence of physical or mental abuses, it is even more tricky to link this with any alleged forced marriage. With the new ban police investigators will be able to look at paper trails, DNA samples and conduct interviews with those involved in the wedding and put together cases to prove that a marriage was not made in true consent of one or both of the spouses. More importantly, any such ban would also send out a clear message that forced marriage is a custom that is not tolerated in this country and would also say to those that are being forced into marriages that the law of the land is on their side which will in turn increase the amount of people affected by this custom contacting the authorities anonymously as they feel less isolated as a result, from which effective investigation can begin.
Status quo legislation is sufficient

Under the status quo, a marriage in the UK requires the consent of both parties, if this is not given, the marriage is invalid. If a marriage took place abroad and one part wishes to end it, divorce is legal. Alternatively, a couple can stay married but live apart with no legal sanction against them. Forcing someone to have sex without them consenting it also against the law, even if the two parties are married. Legislation is already in place which can prevent forced marriages, dissolve them or prevent their most harmful effects. There is therefore no need for additional legislation.
Perception of cultural attack

We ban all sorts of cultural practices, for example, FGM. Where the harm to individuals is so great, the 'rights' of the group must be sacrificed. The rights of the individual should not be put behind the those of a culture or group. Along the line brought up about people being victimised and disassociated with wider culture, how much more could a person be victimised and dissociated than by being subject to a forced marriage? The softly softly approach taken by the authorities towards the communities where these practices take place has led to virtually thousands of women being kept under house arrest in parts of this country. Ask any women's shelter to cite their statistics.
Forced marriage is a barrier to integration

Forced marriage is most commonly found in communities where is it more common to marry someone from 'back home'. Where one person in each generation comes from the 'home' culture, this is a barrier to integration and encourages segregation. As children tend to learn behavioural norms from their parents and other family members, if they see a person who is not engaged with wider society because of language, culture or any other reason, they will see a lack of engagement by one parent as the 'norm'.