BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The rights of humans are more important than the rights of animals

Animal rights are not generally accepted as universal rights in the same way as human rights are. If we want to have a shared society, it is necessary to grant each other certain rights, such as respecting personal autonomy and property. Because we reciprocate, we are able to work as a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. There are different philosophical theories as to the source of these rights, but the important thing is what they allow us to achieve. It is generally accepted that the right to a religion is one of these rights, as for many people religion is fundamental to their identity – most estimates for the number of religious people in the world are over 80%.[1] In comparison, animal rights are in no way critical to society. In our debate, freedom of religion is clashing with causing pain to animals. The former, being a human right, should take precedence over the latter, an animal right. Although we would not give blanket consent to all religious practices, this particular practice is one which there is no reason for banning. [1] ‘Religions’, The World Factbook, 2010 est., https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html
Most stunning methods are not reliable

The stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times). Poultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely.[1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods. Religious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good. [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/a/animal_welfare_problems_in_uk_slaughterhouses_2001.pdf
The problem is not a significant one

The animal welfare movement should be tackling more important things. In the UK, only about 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and 4% of poultry are slaughtered without stunning.[1] Farming and transporting causes the vast majority of the pain in the life of a given animal before it ever arrives at the slaughterhouse. This is a much more important issue, as it affects every animal, not just the small proportion slaughtered without stunning. From the slaughter to the animal actually dying is normally within 20 seconds, and can be as low as 2 seconds, depending on the species of animal.[2] The distress caused by this in not significant in the grand scheme of things. Given that the animal is being slaughtered, some discomfort is inevitable, but religious slaughter – even if it is more painful than slaughter with stunning – can hardly be described as prolonged or systematic cruelty. [1] Rhodes, Andrew, ‘Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain’, Food Standards Agency, 22 May 2012,  http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa120508.pdf [2] Grandin, Temple, ‘Welfare During Slaughter without stunning (Kosher or Halal) differences between Sheep and Cattle’, Grandin.com, September 2012, http://www.grandin.com/ritual/welfare.diffs.sheep.cattle.html
Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone

To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights. Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.
When done properly, religious slaughter is as good as any other

Without accepting the premise that the two types of killing cause equal pain and it is only if the slaughter is done badly that there is a problem the slaughter is more likely to be done badly with religious slaughter. Training people to do religious slaughter well is harder than training them to do other kinds of slaughter. In particular, the latter is more mechanized, so as long as the equipment is properly maintained many problems can be avoided. Religious slaughter is much more prone to human error. It will be much easier to teach people best practice and improve animal welfare if we require them to use the simpler methods, where less training is required. This is a more efficient way of improving animal welfare than studying a myriad of different types of knife etc.
Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs. It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.
We should treat animals well

It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm.[1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty. Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel.[2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices.[3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare. Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods. [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/why-animal-rights/ [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/hunting-and-the-law [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979, http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references/slaughter/jour137_en.pdf
Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone

Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard.[1] So we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions. Everyone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating. [1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011,  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313458/Halal-Britain-Famous-institutions-routinely-serve-public-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html
Mobile phones are expensive

Mobile phones are expensive. First there is the cost of buying the phone. Then there are all the charges for using it. Often there are more charges for downloading apps and other extras. Sometimes we go over the limits of our call time or data allowance and are charged extra. Finally there may be extra costs when the phone needs to be replaced or upgraded. The average cell phone bill in the United States is $70 for a month but it can sometimes be much higher. Clearly not every child can afford their own mobile and often parents cant either.
Mobile phones make sure that we are safe

Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.
Mobile phones make sure that we are safe

Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted if we feel unsafe somewhere.
Mobile phones enable us to keep in touch

Mobile communication is very useful and its main use is not to keep us safe but to make life easier. It is clearly useful that we can phone to ask to be picked up rather than always having to set a meeting time in advance. It is equally useful that a mobile phone can tell us if it is likely to rain, or if the train is late. We don’t need this information, but it certainly is helpful, and it is just as helpful for children as for adults.
Mobile phones help us to learn

Having a mobile phone helps us to learn in a lot of different ways. First we learn about technology; about how to use the mobile phone. Second most phones today have apps (programs) to enable learning using the phone, or else through the internet. Phones can access online courses and lessons which can be provided in fun ways and can in some cases instantly tell you if you have the right answer. It may even sometimes be possible to do homework on a phone and send it to your teacher. Even without the internet phones can be used to provide short assignments, or to provide reminders to study.
Mobile phones lead to increased independence

Mobile phones bring us increased independence. Being able to use a mobile phone is clearly a basic skill to allow children to be independent. It means that they are not dependent on an adult being with them for parents to know where they are. The main reason for parents being unwilling to let children out on their own is fear for their safety. This is a fear that mobiles help prevent. This increased independence has other benefits, such as teaching us to be responsible for ourselves.
Mobile phones distracting

Mobile phones can easily distract us. They can be a particular problem in schools where they discourage us and those around us from working. Using a mobile phone while doing a piece of work will reduce your concentration making it more likely you will make mistakes. Mobile phones, like video games, are also a distraction from doing other things. We don’t just use phones for communication but also for games. Most young people spend well over an hour on their mobiles. As a result there is much less time for other activities.
We should not be encouraging interest in material things

Mobile phones are a part of a desire to keep up with fashion and friends. We all want the biggest and the best. Mobile phone companies know this and regularly bring out flashy new models that are immediately the one everyone must have. The more children have mobiles the more are caught up in this fashion. Our compulsion to want new things all the time is not good for us. Mobile phones, as with many other electronics, are damaging to the environment. Since we buy them and often dispose of the phone only a couple of years later they pile up in gigantic rubbish dumps. Mobile phones are clearly a luxury not something that everyone should have, and we certainly should not keep buying new ones.
The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts

If the value of a degree is judged purely on the likely salary at the end of it, then society has a very real problem. Even without rehearsing the fact that other disciplines would vanish by the wayside, it also ties into the myth that a degree is simply a vocational tool to increase the salary of the person taking it[i]. The mindset that insists that everything can be reduced to the level of individual income has also brought us the obscenity of the bonus culture in high finance and, so far, five years of recession.  The value of the arts is primarily non-monetary; it comes from the psychological benefit of well-designed buildings[ii] or the happiness and creativity stimulated by engaging with a work of art.[iii] University fulfills a far wider societal role in terms of training the mind and socializing the individual. For the vast majority of students, it also provides a respite between the constrictions of the family home and those of the workplace. It is also just possible that people select their degrees primarily because they are interested in them. That in itself is something that cannot be said of significant parts of the world of work. The logic of this motion is that all members of society are employers – or at least wealth generators – first and last. Their role as voters, community members, parents, and plain human beings seems to be irrelevant to both the spirit and wording of the motion and the Proposition’s case. [i] Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/jan/05/david-edgar-why-fund-the-arts [ii] Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/03/school-design-influences-learning [iii] Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8501024/Viewing-art-gives-same-pleasure-as-being-in-love.html
Creative arts graduates are rarely well rewarded

Very few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage. By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist.
The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft

This argument is just specious. There have been plenty of times in history when medicine was ‘learnt on the job’, it didn’t make it a good idea. However, and medicine is an excellent example, we now realise that there is a huge benefit to having students acquire a theoretical underpinning of their discipline before going on to get some hands on experience. Of course there is some need for practical training but there is little reason why universities cannot offer this rather than individual artists.
Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses

This isn’t an either/or discussion. Despite Prop’s efforts to suggest that there are masses of homeless, would-be engineering students roaming around university campuses, the reality is that universities pack their bankable courses just fine and ensure that they have the capacity to do so. The fact that universities do not just churn out an endless round of vocationally-focussed graduates is hugely to be welcomed. If nothing else, it ensures that the university experience itself is a well-rounded one. The very fact that students continue to apply for these courses, and universities continue to meet that demand, suggests that applicants are interested in something more than money. Presumably the very students who are applying for such a degree – and will shoulder the repercussions of having one – form part of society and are quiet happy to ‘afford’ their degree.
The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts

Opp’s case sounds excellent, and reasonable and sensible. And complete nonsense. Those countries that have changed their fee arrangements for students in recent years, such as the UK, have seen that students are very concerned with whether their degree is likely to cover the cost of taking it – now that they are expected to pay for it. When it is society at large footing the bill, unsurprisingly, they are less concerned. Of course the financial outcome of doing a degree is of paramount interest to both the student and wider society, suggesting otherwise is sophistry.
Creative arts graduates are rarely well rewarded

It is a simple fact that degrees in the Arts offer less earning potential than those in all other sectors (except Education and social work)[i]. As well as being an issue for the individual, this affects wider society, as those on lower incomes are more likely to become dependent on the state at some point in their life and are less well placed to stimulate other sectors of the economy through their own consumption. The median earning figure across Arts degrees is, itself deceptive. The median in the US is $45,000 but this disguises the lower end of the scale, with 25% earning $30,000 a year or less. Unlike education and social work which at least tend to have the consistency of a government salary, the Arts are also fantastically unreliable as an employment sector. Teachers and social workers may have comparatively low salaries but at least they can be assured of job security. The Arts offers low and unstable wages, frequently at an ongoing expense to the taxpayer, when the jobs exist at all. As a result, encouraging the creative arts through university qualifications places both an initial and, potentially, ongoing cost on the rest of society. It also means that graduates are likely to be destined to long term financial instability because of a decision they made as a teenager. It is difficult to see who benefits from such an arrangement. [i] ‘Arts’, Georgetown University, http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/arts.pdf
The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft

The idea that the best place to learn an artform is a classroom is fantastically modern. The idea of teaching them at all is fairly recent. If ever there were an example of ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’, then it’s the arts. Novelists, poets, painters, dancers, composers, musicians and others have been learning from each other as they practiced their art for, quite literally, millennia. Practitioners learning by doing has worked perfectly well for most of history and produced, for example, the extraordinary works of the renaissance or classical art mostly without the benefit of a university degree. All a degree in this area does is extend the period of delusion that an individual is good enough to cut it as a professional artist[i]. [i] Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012. http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/campuslife/actors-dilemma-theater-major-vs-no-theater-major
Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses

Universities have to provide a range of courses, some of which are going to be more financially viable than others, that fine. However, investment in one area inevitably means that there are resources not being focused elsewhere. It’s not a huge factor but some subjects – creative arts, Theology and a few others do represent a ‘back door’ into universities for those who didn’t get the grades to get onto more demanding courses. Those students still need to sleep, study and socialize somewhere – in place of those who could have taken their places on Engineering, Medicine, Economics or similar courses had the space been available. By keeping these courses, universities are turning away students for other disciplines and those studying the arts courses are learning in a way that may not be the most productive – as mentioned in the previous argument. It’s difficult to see who wins.
The Arts provide huge benefits to society; easily comparable to humanities or theoretical science

It has already been mentioned that there are plenty of degrees where it is unlikely that graduates will ever use the knowledge they acquire, per se, in their later careers. Proposition has failed to give a reason – other than earning power – as to why the creative arts should be singled out on this ground[i]. However, in terms of the general utility provided to wider society, it would be hard to point to a discipline that out performs the arts. Every TV drama, theatre production, concert and so on is likely to include at least a smattering of participants who studied the subject. It is in the nature of the arts that its audience massively outnumbers those participating in its production. Beyond that the trickle down affect of knowledge into every area of public life from ideas and concepts initiated by artists is enormous. However, if Prop’s entire case is that artists should be paid more for the enormous amount of good they do, we are quite happy to concede the point. [i] McCarthy, Kevin F. et al., ‘Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts.’, The Rand Corporation, 2005, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9106/index1.html