BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug addicts suffer from a disease.

People should have a health oriented approach to drug dependence, because it offers a better scene for the future life of those affected and to society in general. If we feel bad for people who are suffering from cancer or AIDS, why shouldn’t we feel the same way for someone who became a drug addict? This problem is considered a disease and it must be treated as such. According to article 38 of the UN Single Convention of narcotic drugs (1961), “the Parties shall give special attention to and take all practicable measures… for the early identification, treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration of the persons involved”. [[http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf]] Drug addicts can fall in such state by diverse causes, but in most cases, it happens because of the person’s environment, curiosity, miseducation, low self esteem, no tolerance to frustration, among others. We must understand the complexity of drug addiction, because it directly affects the central nervous system and thus stopping drug abuse is not simply a matter of willpower. Some of the consequences of this disease are failure in school, family disintegration, violence and loss of employment. Therefore, we should definitely feel compassion for drug addicts and if we know someone with this problem, try to support them while they’re on rehabilitation and then help them go through their social reintegration.
The proposed changes are meaningless.

In our current culture, we can thank the media and politicians for amping up the stigma attached within the drug culture. This is not to say that many forms of drugs are not or can not be lethal, it's just that when the government wants to make something seem worse than it is or could be, leaking a few well placed words to the media, and you have a feeding frenzy. Drugs and alcohol have been around since the dawn of time, and will remain here long after we all are dead, buried and decomposed. We have our sports heroes, and celebrities doing all of the things that many could only dream of, and we get so engrossed in their "fairy-tail" lives, that we forget that we have our own heroes and true celebs right in our own towns. We got here because, for many, a blind eye was turned up as long as the illegal drug trade stayed in impoverished ares of the nation, then all was just great; but, when the secluded segment of society began seeing their own kids involved in drugs, then it (the drug trade) became their worse nightmare. Now as their offspring became addicted, you saw many more drug treatment facilities erected in the better parts of towns, but where the help really is needed got the shaft. Not only that, but, the reporting of who are on drugs is so skewed because in the upper-middle neighborhoods, or the Midwestern towns , it is easier to keep the families business out of the limelight, but in the poorer areas of America, well, we see all the horrors associated with drugs and alcohol abuse as it unfolds and is reported everyday in the mass media. Faces of those on the lower end of the SES, are plastered all over the screen. If it was not for some of the "upper-crust" getting themselves caught up in all of this mess, things would be pretty quiet. We all know about Nixon's wife, and her bouts with substance abuse, and I can go on and on, but in the meantime, there will be another drug or alcohol induced death in the inner cities, or in the poorer areas of America, and who will help them get straight again. Addiction, is someone else problem. It is only the downtrodden who become addicted, while I consume 3-5 drinks at happy hour everyday, and then sit at home and enjoy some fine dinner wine, and a nightcap of some expensive liquor, but no, you do not have an addiction.
The proposed changes are meaningless.

So we're supposed to use different words for drug addiction? How is that supposed to help them? It will only make people resentful of their loss of freedom of speech and suspicious of the Government for using euphemisms, they will still feel the same way about drug addicts but will just mask it better, it will hinder people who want to help drug addicts but need to be completely honest with them, such as doctors and psychiatrists, and the Government will spend time and money inventing new language and putting managers on awareness courses instead of developing more and better addiction treatment.
Social stigma makes their condition worse.

If we attach a stigma to drug users, yes, we may worsen the condition of those who are already avid drug users. However, if we begin to accept dealing in drugs, if we release the stigma, then there will be more likely a chance of our children becoming drug users. The stigma is a large factor in preventing people from using drugs. They do not want society to reject them. This is a far worse effect than if we drop the stigma and make a few pre-existing drug users worse.
Social stigma makes their condition worse.

Drug addiction causes and is caused by mental health problems that are exacerbated by the constant stress of being harrassed, stigmatised, denied facilities and treated as an underclass. Such treatment makes them more likely to want to take drugs to cope with the situation and also more likely to commit drug-related crimes against a system that hates them. What drug addicts really need is a place to get help, not incarceration or anything as harsh
Drug addiction isn't the addict's fault.

It is not an 'inability'. Inability makes coming off drugs sound like an impossibility. However, this is clearly not true. People do cure their addiction. The same can be seen with smoking. It can be done and it has been done. These drug users have chosen to continue with their addiction and so they are to blame. They may have to make effort in order for them to release themselves from the addiction, but it is indeed possible.
Drug addiction isn't the addict's fault.

While it is their decision to start taking drugs (although there will often have been a lot of social pressure from availability, drug taking in their peer groups and the stress of living in a poor area) it is not their decision to become addicted to a drug once it has already chemically re-wired their brain to take the drug. Addiction isn't poor willpower, it is neural inability to stop using a drug or unbearable pain if they do stop using it.
We shouldn't be stigmatisng any group.

We need to have a sense of realism about this. In order to help drug addicts we need to recognise that because of their addiction, they will be more likely to steal again. They still have the need to steal. Because they have a reason to steel again, because they have an urge to pay for their addiction, we need to issue them with more radical punishments in order to shake their perception and in order to make them reconsider. This is more so in the case of drug users than for ordinary criminals.
We shouldn't be stigmatisng any group.

There is never a reason to allow a group to be targeted by hate and suspicion. If we suspect drug addicts of committing more crimes than usual, this doesn't give us a right to stigmatise drug addicts. If a drug addict commits a crime, they will be punished for them the same as anyone else who commits a crime, but this is different to automatically singling them out as a person who will commit crimes.
Immunity allows the politician to remain focussed on serving his time in office rather than being di...

Immunity allows the politician to remain focussed on serving his time in office rather than being distracted. We have seen above how such a distraction might work. This is seen as desirable because the role of the elected politician is to serve the interests of his or her constituents widely. The best way to hold politicians accountable is to let the electorate decide. In a free society with media scrutiny voters can judge politicians at elections and choose whether to support them or not, taking into account all that is known about their past actions and indiscretions. For example, it is hard to argue that either the French or the American people believed that Presidents Chirac and Clinton respectively were fine moral examples, yet they chose to re-elect each in a statement of support for their leadership and policies.
Prosecution of a senior politician or parliamentarian damages the dignity of office. It is importan...

Prosecution of a senior politician or parliamentarian damages the dignity of office. It is important that politicians are not scared to speak out, for example to encourage free and open parliamentary debate and so encourage optimal law-making. Involvement in the legal system, especially the criminal justice system or in cases where there is some hint of moral wrongdoing, creates an explicit link between the politicians and a mode of behaviour which is not exemplary. This is deeply damaging to the public respect for high office, even where the person may have in fact done wrong. This is one reason why, for example, absolute monarchs tend to sit above the law. Even where the accusation may have some basis, it is better for the dignity of the office to ignore individual wrongdoing and retain the façade of the role.
Political office undermines the important judicial concept of objectivity. In any well-developed le...

Political office undermines the important judicial concept of objectivity. In any well-developed legal system it will be expected that an accused would receive a fair trial in which they are judged fairly and impartially. This may well not happen where that accused holds public office. Politicians are likely to be well-known and so perhaps split opinion, making it hard to achieve a fair trial. And their involvement in the executive or legislative branches of government will perhaps have brought them into conflict with the judicial branch, and so it might be expected that judges would also be hard placed to treat them objectively.
Attempts to prosecute senior politicians are cheap, politicised attempts to score goals against them...

The need to prosecute is often very serious and stems from the office itself. Many complaints against public figures are grave. They may well be related to the nature of the way in which that person fulfils his public office. For example, the action may be about holding someone to account or encouraging a fuller public insight into something in which the government has been involved. In many cases these may be things which it is important to have publicised and for the relevant people to be held accountable, in the interests of good and also open government. Giving politicians power without accompanying responsibility and accountability will actively encourage abuse of power, because the person will know that he is effectively unaccountable for his actions at law.
Immunity allows the politician to remain focussed on serving his time in office rather than being di...

Many accusations will cloud the politician’s career unfairly. Even (perhaps especially) in systems with immunity, whispers about a person’s behaviour will hang over him and will have a damaging effect. Immunity serves against a politician's interests because it means that they cannot publicly clear their name. Therefore they will be pursued by possibly unsubstantiated accusations. When these are not fully and transparently demonstrated to be false in court, they will fester and eat away at their public reputation over a long period of time.
Prosecution of a senior politician or parliamentarian damages the dignity of office. It is importan...

Involvement in legal action does not damage the dignity of office. First there is the question of whether public office carries with it any inherent dignity other than that of its current bearer. Even if one accepts that it does, it doesn't make sense to say that stopping that person from rebutting accusations in law will enhance or protect the dignity of the office. If anything, it seems likely to bring it into some sort of disrepute. It sets up something of a double standard whereby the bearer of the public office in question is expected to be denied the dignity other people would have in being able to clear their name.
Immunity need not serve to allow the person to escape responsibility for his actions altogether. It...

Immunity while in office encourages incumbents to hang onto that status when it would be better for them to hand it over. Where a politician knows that their immunity ends when they leaves office, they have an incentive to hang onto office for as long as possible and so avoid prosecution. This can be damaging to the democratic process as well as to the office. For example, it makes it more likely that politicians will try to hang on to office long after they should have retired as old age starts to reduce their energy and judgement. Worse, it can lead to attempts to change constitutions to allow further terms in office, or to rig elections, and harass and undermine political opponents, etc. This problem would not arise where there was no difference in the ability to be prosecuted of the individual whether he was still in office or had already left it.
Attempts to prosecute senior politicians are cheap, politicised attempts to score goals against them...

Attempts to prosecute senior politicians are cheap, politicised attempts to score goals against them. It is often the case that opposition parties and other opponents of the government will focus their resources on trying to destabilise the government or its senior figures. Involving them in legal action may serve to do this as prosecutions are destabilising even if the accusations are groundless or very unlikely to succeed in court. This is because the time, expense, energy and strain involved in the legal action may well serve to undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the person being accused. Therefore it is important that the many frivolous suits which would otherwise be brought as political stunts are stopped, at least while the person remains in public office.
Eastern European countries will become more securely tied into the EU as they are required to adopt ...

Enlargement will only cause further problems as countries with less secure economies and more disparate structures also demand a voice in policy making. Each country already puts conflicting strains on the ECB, and neither side will benefit from policies which seek to impose too narrow a straitjacket – particularly as sensitivities to monetary policy vary widely. Swelling the size of the ECB will also worsen decision making.
The euro will provide a challenge to the supremacy of the dollar, making worldwide investment less d...

The euro will provide a challenge to the supremacy of the dollar, making worldwide investment less dependent on the vagaries of one country’s economy. As the euro will play an increasing role in foreign exchanges, it would be advisable to join in order to have one’s own interests accounted for directly by the European Central Bank. The ECB itself has successfully held down levels of inflation, and proven its independence from EU politicians – which were the two key requirements for future success.
The economic significance of the euro matches the current trend within the EU of greater harmonisati...

The economic significance of the euro matches the current trend within the EU of greater harmonisation of policymaking in economic and foreign affairs. It is increasingly difficult to be considered a full member of the EU without joining in its most significant venture. Furthermore, as negotiations trade off between different areas of policymaking, non-participants will be excluded from internal debates, as well as being passed over internationally (at the G7 or WTO meetings) in favour of a single voice of ‘Mr Euro’.
Problems with the Growth and Stability Pact do exist, but can be dealt with as a separate issue from...

Problems with the Growth and Stability Pact do exist, but can be dealt with as a separate issue from the euro itself. As more countries join, the legal requirements of the Pact can be applied flexibly, but are at least in place should disputes arise. Countries are protected from governments acting as lender or last resort or over-inflating the money supply.
Eastern European countries will become more securely tied into the EU as they are required to adopt ...

Eastern European countries will become more securely tied into the EU as they are required to adopt the euro. As many are already doing so informally, it would benefit both parties if they were bound into the structures and protective legal requirements as are all other members. It is true that the ECB would need to undergo radical reform if enlargement takes place – but it might provide a beneficial stimulus to structural renewal.
It is hard to enjoy full membership of a single market without also participating in a single curren...

It is a fallacy to assume that merely showing that prices differ will force unofficial harmonisation. Different market costs, monopolies and cartels (for example in car markets) mean that purchasers are unable or unwilling to enjoy perfectly competitive markets. The changeover period provided opportunities for price rises – Italian newspapers rose by up to 18%, the German nickname for the new currency was the ‘teuro’ – teuer meaning expensive.
The euro will provide a challenge to the supremacy of the dollar, making worldwide investment less d...

The weakness of the euro in its first two years is a witness to the foreign exchange markets’ distrust of both it and the ECB. The exact exchange rate matters less than the fact that Europe’s markets are over-regulated by governments and have failed to implement structural reforms necessary to attract international investment. Meanwhile, the ECB has a reputation for weak decision-making and secrecy, being unwilling to publish the minutes of its meetings or explain away a series of gaffes.
The economic significance of the euro matches the current trend within the EU of greater harmonisati...

The fact that the EU is doing far more than was originally intended (a free trade areas) does not mean that this is universally popular. In fact, there is a risk – particularly in Eastern Europe – of strains from economic inflexibility leading to political anti-EU parties gaining ground. Internationally, speaking as part of the EU may provide countries with a louder voice – but that is useless if they are unable to articulate the best policy for themselves.
Membership of the euro means a single monetary policy for much of Europe, which simplifies borrowing...

Monetary inflexibility is extremely dangerous, given that asymmetric shocks will become more likely as the EU expands. The UK has often been closer to the USA’s economic cycle than Europe’s, partly because of its oil revenues and greater transatlantic trade. There is also a risk that older and larger members of the EU will have more policymaking clout than newer or smaller ones. A single interest rate cannot practicably apply to Portugal, Germany and Bulgaria – unlike individual countries, linguistic and cultural barriers make for an inflexible labour market.
It is possible to apply force without using a single troop, then: diplomatic pressure, including san...

For any country to stand in a moral “pulpit” in this way is bound to do severe harm to diplomatic relations well before it effects any change. There is no substantial evidence that the sanctions against Iraq or Myanmar made the governments there respect human rights any better. Indeed, the fact that medical supplies have been allowed in, while other industrial products have not, apparently led to the medical supplies being purloined for use by the military machine, rather than aiding the civilian population. This is the inevitable result of diplomatic meddling. In the case of China, a BBC poll showed that 69% of British people thought President Clinton should not apply pressure on Beijing regarding its human rights record.
It is our duty, as good international Samaritans, to intervene in order to halt human rights violati...

It is our duty, as good international Samaritans, to intervene in order to halt human rights violations. The 1948 Genocide Convention calls on countries to “undertake to prevent and to punish' genocide. For any human rights violation, the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights calls for the use of force when the UN has specifically approved it.
The use of force by one country upon another can be justified because the citizens of every country ...

The use of force by one country upon another can be justified because the citizens of every country in the world are entitled to exactly the same rights. This endows countries that are the best at delivering these rights with the authority to impose their standards on the rest. (A more extreme view:) Certainly, when one country’s 'take' on human rights means that the people of another are treated in breech of the conventions they recognise, there is even more of a case to use force to uphold rights. The British Government came under pressure to intervene to 'rescue' the two British nurses convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia.
It is our duty, as good international Samaritans, to intervene in order to halt human rights violati...

It is hypocritical to use force to uphold human rights: the use of force inevitably involves infringing one right (to life, or property) for the sake of another. For example, Indonesian intervention in East Timor involved the imposition of martial law, while American actaions in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been heavily criticised on human rights grounds. Amnesty International describe this as “complaint and cure” being the same.
The use of force by one country upon another can be justified because the citizens of every country ...

It is wrong to assume that western ideas of human rights extend throughout the world. Buddhism, for example, places more emphasis upon 'human nature', and upon the effects of individuals’ actions, than upon 'rights'. The use of force cannot respect such differences. In any case, how does one define a country that is 'the best' at delivering human rights? The USA often takes the initiative in launching intervention, but some would criticise the treatment of prisoners on the USA’s Death Row or Guantanamo Bay almost as much as the atrocities in Kosovo, or Taliban attacks in Afghanistan.
Careful planning of violent force can minimise the number of rights that the force itself violates. ...

This is totally impossible: despite the technology of modern weapons, only a very small proportion of the missiles launched hit their intended target. What happens to the rest? They hit hospitals (as allegedly in Iraq during the Gulf War), or embassies (the Chinese one, during the Kosovo conflict). In total, between 400 and 600 civilians were killed by NATO over Kosovo; over a hundred thousand may have died as a result of US intervention in Iraq. Pilots cannot really be blamed for this, since the rules of engagement prevent them from getting lower than 15000 feet. It would have been impossible to tell whether there was anyone inside the Serbian television headquarters when it was bombed. The only safe answer is not to bomb.
Force need not mean “violence”: it could entail the deployment of a peace-keeping force such as KFOR...

Peace-keeping forces are only ever found in the aftermath of violent action: witness Kosovo especially. Even so-called peace-keeping forces find it impossible to stop their enforced reign becoming violent: when two KFOR soldiers were injured in Mitrovica in February 2000, the UN force reacted by detaining 49 people in unsanitary conditions for five days. There are stories of French soldiers ramming guns in prisoners’ backs, and using hostile language: all of this in the name of peace-'keeping'. Similarly, there are many examples of UN peacekeepers abusing the local population in Congo.