BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It would be much simpler and fairer

Currently if a person receives unemployment benefits they will often be better off by not working because the more they earn then the less benefit they get and they may earn less than they would do had they not worked at all. This means that even people who are not lazy find it better to simply receive benefits than enter the workplace. There are also numerous benefits which have to be means tested, incurring extra costs. A proposed formula for a negative income tax is receiving half of the difference between a person or household's income and the minimum tax bracket. For example, if the minimum tax bracket is £10,000 and someone earns £10,500, they will only pay tax on the £500 over. At £10,000 they will pay nothing and at £9,500 they will receive a subsidy of £250.
It would encourage low income earners to work.

Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes.
For the negative income tax implementation we can use the 50% of the median wage.

For instance, if 50% of the median wage is €200, then choose the wage determination level of €100. Now, suppose that some person earns in a month €50; however he/she had no power to achieve a level of €100. We pay following Milton Friedamn'i NIT-negative income tax model, a half of €50, ie. € 25. Total personal payroll would be € 75. Milton Friedman do not obligate the payroll €75 for taxation. But, if we strip the exemption and do not make any changes in income tax rules at all¾we leave the rules old way, calculating all old subsidies into payroll¾then the solution is something else, look at http://www.datalaundering.com/download/txdesign.pdf
Income is not necessarily proportional to 'hard work'

It is frequently argued by right-wing thinkers that "if you work hard, you will earn more", and while this is true in the sense that working longer hours will result in a larger pay-cheque, it seems to imply a level playing field for everyone to begin with. Quite simply, this is not the case. Incomes and employment are affected by a whole range of factors such as education, contacts, social stigmas not to mention simple geographical location, while everyone knows it is easier to establish a successful business if one has investment and financial stability to begin with. A negative income tax which rewards 'hard workers' will more often than not reward people who earn higher incomes based on a range of factors which are often out of their control. Similarly, it will penalize people who might work 'hard', but work in industries, regions or businesses with relatively low incomes. The existing benfit system, while imperfect, at least supoprts people on low incomes, regardless of extraneous factors.
It would be much simpler and fairer

There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.
Be competitive

Most people are not courageous enough to be competitive and acknowledging this being competitive feels like the best strategy for those who dare. Monopolies have used the principal of competition to rise above everyone else; booting out new competition before it could be threatening. Using bribes and/or other forms of venality even aggression and threats is common in the history of how many big organizations started. Sometimes playing against the rules to comply with unwritten rules is required. Getting a patent for your product/invention and/or getting legal copyright for your writing in case of a novelist or writer is another way of keeping competitors at bay. Products are copied,re-engineered and blue-prints/designs are stolen, everyday. It's a dog eat dog town. If you can't take on corruption being corrupt is the only option. (if you can't beat 'em join 'em) "Zero sum The basic assumption of competitive negotiation is that it is a 'zero sum game'. That is, the people involved believe that there is a fixed amount to be gained which both people desire, and if one person gains then the other person loses. It is like arguing over a pie: if one person gets a piece of the pie then the other person does not. Win-lose The outcome of zero-sum negotiation is defined in terms of winners and losers. One person gets what they want and feels smug (or maybe a bit guilty) whilst the other person gets loses out and feels cheated or a failure."-[[http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/styles/competitive_negotiation.htm]] Counterargument: Communist!
As in the debate definition Competitive strategies are the best and only option in zero sum games.

In the case where there is a game that allows no room for draws; where the only outcome could be either winning or losing; it is necessary to take your competitor down ; rather than negotiate with him/her through civil/social contact/contract. For example in wars the situation on the battlefield when the rules made it clear that prisoners cannot be taken was to kill or be killed. This problem required a soldier to take a life or die. Now, most zero-sum games are not as extreme but the understanding is the same; there is no incentive to accommodate the competitor because there is no leeway for both parties to win. [[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/zesugam.html]]
Most games are never truly zero-sum and there is always room to accommodate a partial win for the other side

[[http://www.answers.com/topic/negotiation]] Whenever negotiation is entered into for the purpose of making a contract; cooperative strategies are encouraged. The object of negotiation is not to cut talks off but to consummate talks on an equally satiated footing. The objective is to maintain amicable contact for the long run, to leave with a good impression and a civil handshake with purely good feelings. [[http://ezinearticles.com/?Competitive-Vs-Cooperative---A-Comparison-of-Two-Common-Business-Models&id=1792997]] In the business world connections are everything; insulting people, disrespecting them or just shutting them up will turn you into a bankrupt pariah if you are not careful.
Be competitive

What about integrity or playing fair? What about morality in business. A company that is notorious for venal practices and corruption including rough handling competitor firms or newly emerging small firms; alienates other member of the business community. In business connections are key and this risk for a quick is not worth it. We should look out for everyone and not for just ourselves. If we only look out for numero uno we will lose all our friends in the long run. [[http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/styles/competitive_negotiation.htm]]
As in the debate definition Competitive strategies are the best and only option in zero sum games.

Even in a zero-sum game ; competitive strategies such as cheating should not be employed. An honorable soldier does not poison his adversaries, he does not stab an enemy in the back and he gives any enemy soldier the right to fight against him. And in more recent wars a soldier is required to be able to opt for imprisonment over death if s/he faces certain death. Ultimately, any problem should be resolved with the satisfaction and civil treatment of both/all sides. We're human beings not animals even in extreme situations there are rules of courtesy that are expected. [[http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/nuclear-war-courtesy-of-nato]]
As in the debate definition Nash equilibrium points out that being cooperative in certain situations is better than being competitive

This only works when the prisoners can make a trust-worthy deal to confess and have the security/surety/insurance that the other prisoner will confess also. Prisoners are usually kept apart and therefore cannot strike such trust-worthy unions. Good-cop bad cop strategies are continuously employed to dupe one prisoner into believing, that the other prisoner ratted him out and took no blame for the crime/act(did not confess) When there is no insurance the prisoner who does not confess wins.
Most games are never truly zero-sum and there is always room to accommodate a partial win for the other side

The big boss/Alpha-male/Top-man is never a pariah. He's the person who can be rude to anyone because he does not need to coerce or patronize people to get to the tops; he's already there. Inventors, big-shot writers, celebrities diplomats etc make demands on other people who comply only to be around these people. The idea is that any publicity or contact with this negative or positive with be great for business. Call it the diplomatic license or the dumb-pretty-blonde-charm; it works. Sometimes these people even get away with murder. The idea is to get to the top and it doesn't matter how you got there ; stay there employing the same competitive strategies. Rules of the jungle: Survival of the fittest. [[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/385530/are_celebrities_getting_away_with_murder.html?cat=17]]
Adopting a written constitution

It cannot be argued that a move to a written constitution is a move towards the 21st Century. Yes, it would be a change, but not a modern one. Currently, the UK's unwritten constitution allows for just as much protection as a written constitution would. The only difference would be that many papers would ahve to pass before any constitutional change was made, this makes change more difficult. The benefit of an unwritten constitution is that what works can stay and what does not can easily be disgarded and adapted. This is not so with a written constitution. Plato recognised this in his book Statesman when he said that written laws are not knowledgeable, they make no allowances for unique cases. It is for this reason that we have a judiciary who can adapt the interpretation of written laws. However, we cannot have a judiciary interpreting a written constitution as this would in fact create more fluidity than a constitution can cope with. The system we have in place in the UK is the right balance, and instead of falling in toe with other countries, they should take heed of how the UK operates.
Adopting a written constitution

The UK should adopt a written constitution, which would set out the infrastructure of the state and outline the rights and responsibilities of the citizens, the powers and constraints of the executive, legisaltive and the judiciary. The ancient acts, treaties and texts that currently make up our unwritten constitution would all be binded into any new written constitution. This move would follow the precendent of our comrades in Europe, the USA and Asia, finally marking our move into the 21st century and keeping the various parts of the state in check and within their designated area of responsibility.
Introducing electoral reform for Westminster

We should adopt electoral reform at Westminster and scrap the current FPTP system that is out of step with the voting preferences of the populus. The method that we adopt for electing our representatives should be debated and voted upon by the country and not just in the corridoors or Westminster or the party headquarters. The types of electoral model that should be up for discussion would be STV or Single Transferable Vote, AV+, AMS and others.
Abolish the House of Lords and creating a fully elected Senate

The powers of the legislative House of Lords are limited. They in fact only have a power which enables them to delay the ascent of legislation proposed by the Government. If the House of Lords rejects a Parliamentary bill 3 times, the legislation can then be passed. Given that there is normally a years delay between one Bill and the next, this gives the House of Lords a very limited power. Despite how limited it is, it is useful should an undesirable Parliament be elected in. Once elected, the House of Lords is the only hault on Government power, surely we do not wish this safety catch to be abolished and replaced by the same elected parties who will only follow their party lines anyway?
Seperating the Legislative and the Executive.

The legislative and the Executive should be seperated and follow the model of the French and US system. The government from the PM downwards would no longer sit in the legisaltive once they were appointed to government, however they would continue to be held accountable to parliament and by parliament, introducing legislation, being scrutinised by MPs, delivering statements and so forth. The legisaltive would be wholly concerned with working to represent their constituents, introducing bills and implementing legislation, holding government to account and serving on committees either as members or chairmen. This end government control over the legisaltive and allow the legislative to gain the freedom that it has last and indeed requires in order to function effectively. The executive would be free to govern the country and to introduce legislation from its manifesto and through their time in office.
Our unwritten constitution is more stable

Any written constitution would include ancient texts and treaties which would sit alongside any new texts and provisions that were needed. To change the system would not cause instability and indeed if you look at countries that have written constitutions they are less prone to constitutional crisis than those without. Any written constitution would act as a check against government overreach in its powers, something that is greatly needed after both the increase in power held y the executive at the expense of parliament under the Labour and Conservative governments.
Our unwritten constitution is more stable

Currently our constitution rests on bed of thousand of years of subtle changes and evolution. The procedures contained within the UK constitution have sedimented and form a tightly wound ball that has been all but written. There is no way that any draftsman could put into words what this history has created. Subtle changes in words would change the whole system and this would promote unstability, not stability which is what proponants of written constitutions argue that they provide.
Drugs are illegal. Holders of public office and those elected to power should set an example by dem...

Of course drugs are illegal. But nobody else has to take these tests as part of their job – why single out a certain group? Public officials are only human and misbehaviour in their private lives should have no bearing on their performance in office. And what about campaigners for drug legalisation - a perfectly legitimate political position which might be denied elected advocates under this harsh rule?
Politicians make decisions for all of us, and spend our money. We are entitled to take steps to pre...

Drugs affect four groups of people. Firstly, it affects people who aren’t taking drugs. Those people are needlessly intruded upon by testing. Secondly, it affects people who are taking drugs, but it doesn’t affect their work. Why do we care, since it doesn’t affect their work? Thirdly, there are people who are taking drugs and it shows as their work is worse. We don’t need tests to show this, since we can see the result in their work and they can be sacked or voted out of office. Lastly, there are those with a real problem – those that are taking drugs and it affects them so badly that they can’t work. They’re not affected by workplace testing – since they’re not at work in the first place.
It’s not an unreasonable search if it’s made a condition of office that’s accepted as one takes up o...

Testing without grounds for suspicion is an unwarranted intrusion. In the USA, this would be considered an ‘unreasonable search' and it surely runs against the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights' sections on privacy. As with all such intrusions into people's private lives, it is likely to meet resistance and alienate people from politics and the state, especially the young.
We are entitled to know about the actions of politicians in their private lives. Moral values infor...

Politicians, like everyone else, should be judged by their actions and the quality of their service, not by their private lives. If we have drug testing for elected office, why not also test them for alcohol abuse - a much bigger problem with most middle-aged or elderly men. Why not give them IQ tests to ensure our legislators are not too stupid to decide on our laws? Why not spy on them to see if they are faithful to their partners, or break the speed limit, or fill in their tax returns correctly, etc.?
Politicians make decisions for all of us, and spend our money. We are entitled to take steps to pre...

Politicians make decisions for all of us, and spend our money. We are entitled to take steps to prevent them from doing so under the influence of drugs! Results may well not show in their work until it’s too late to do anything about it. It may well be the case that we see a politician has done badly whilst negotiating a trade agreement, and, looking into it, we discover that he is taking drugs. But why not solve the problem before this happens, by testing everyone periodically?
We are entitled to know about the actions of politicians in their private lives. Moral values infor...

We are entitled to know about the actions of politicians in their private lives. Moral values inform the way that many people vote. Hypocrisy is a terrible thing and we’re entitled to know if our leaders are guilty of it. Furthermore, this isn’t strictly private since it’s not about establishing moral probity or social preference – it’s about demonstrating a lack of illegality. Surely we can ask our politicians, who make our laws, to keep them?
Modern testing is much more reliable than the opposition implies. Even if this is the case, at leas...

Modern testing is much more reliable than the opposition implies. Even if this is the case, at least most drugs will be caught – and tests quickly catch up, meaning people will never be certain that they’re safe. Indeed people do try to find out when the test is going to happen – but that’s an argument in favour of more secretive, randomised testing, rather than an argument against testing at all.
The reliance of America and its western allies on conventional fossil fuels, chiefly oil, is a major...

The reliance of America and its western allies on conventional fossil fuels, chiefly oil, is a major security issue. Much of the world’s oil and gas is produced by unstable, unfriendly or undemocratic regimes, none of whom can be counted on as reliable long-term partners when considering our future energy security. The past actions of OPEC and the recent willingness of Russia to use its supplies of natural gas to threaten European states both point to a need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Some commentators have also argued that the money we pay to conservative Islamic states for oil often ends up funding terrorism and propping up potential enemies. Increasing the use of biofuels can therefore contribute to our security by ensuring that more of our energy needs are met from within our own country, reducing our dependence on foreign suppliers.
There is plenty of scope to produce much greater quantities of biofuels without squeezing food produ...

There is plenty of scope to produce much greater quantities of biofuels without squeezing food production. Many developed countries have been overproducing crops such as wheat in past decades, leading to programmes such as the EU’s set-aside scheme whereby farmers are paid not to grow crops on some of their land. Agricultural productivity continues to rise, especially in the developing world where new techniques and strains of seed, including types genetically-modified to suit harsh conditions will have a major impact.
The growth of biofuels will be good for farmers, both in the west and in the developed world. In re...

The growth of biofuels will be good for farmers, both in the west and in the developed world. In recent decades farmers in the developed world have produced more food than the market required, resulting in large surpluses and very low prices. A great many farmers have been driven out of business as a result, and few young people wish to try to make a living from the land. Meanwhile, surplus grain from America and the EU has often been dumped on markets in the developing world, harming local farmers who are unable to compete. Both sorts of farmers stand to benefit from increased demand for biofuels, as farm incomes improve and market-distorting surpluses disappear. Taxpayers may also benefit as there will be less need to subsidise more prosperous farmers.
Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the sca...

Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the scaling up of production, their price per gallon (or litre) will continue to fall. Oil looks likely to maintain its current high prices well into the future, due to the exhaustion of many existing fields, strong demand from developing economies such as India and China, and security concerns which are unlikely to go away. Given these long-term trends, without investment in biofuel technology we actually risk our economies being crippled by sky-high fuel costs, for example if oil prices head up over $100 a barrel. Some subsidies to this investment seem highly justified, especially as they can replace existing agricultural support payments, rather than being additional money.\ Biofuels are also a sensible bridge to a greener future, allowing us to develop a more sustainable future without unbearable economic or social cost. Unlike alternatives such as hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels do not need a completely different infrastructure to be widely adopted. \
Biofuels already have a great deal to offer today, but prospects for the future are even more exciti...

Biofuels already have a great deal to offer today, but prospects for the future are even more exciting and deserve our support. New crops like Jatropha promise to produce much more energy from a given amount of land. They also flourish without annual replanting or chemical inputs on marginal land. In the longer term, bio-engineers are working on producing “cellulosic” biofuels – in which the stems and leaves of plants or trees are used to produce ethanol, not just the fruits or seeds. Cellulosic biofuels would allow much more fuel to be produced from a given amount of land, and could also be made from the waste products of food or timber production, such as straw and woodchips.