BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fish farming is not actually benefiting the poor

Gertjan de Graaf and Abdul Latif. "Development of Freshwater Fish farming and Poverty Alleviation. A Case Study from Bangladesh." Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific. June 2002 - "Half of the 130 million people in Bangladesh are poor and 30 million are living in extreme poverty. Poverty reduction and improvement of the livelihoods of the poorest of the poor has always been one of the major goals of development programmes in Bangladesh and is a major objective in all the aquaculture development programmes. Whether the benefits of these programmes have been made available to the poor can be questioned, as their basic strategy: 'growth of the overall fish production through fish farming' was in most cases not consistent with the socio-economic reality of the rural poor in Bangladesh. We want to illustrate this point with two case studies: the Compartmentalisation Pilot Project and the Char Development and Settlement Project."
"Dominion" makes humans stewards; no right to harm/exploit animals

God did not give humans unfettered dominion over animals. Rather, human dominion over animals is much like God's dominion over humans; it is a caring, nurturing, parent-like relationship. It is not a tyrannical, do-what-we-want kind of a relationship. Therefore, fish-farming must be sensitively in-tune with this human care-taker dominion over animals.
Humans have a right to exploit fish however they want:

It is more important that people are well fed than that animals are comfortable. This principle is accepted with land animals: chickens are often raised in cramped conditions. Moreover, nothing is done to stop pain to wild fish when they are caught. People should be encouraged to eat fish. Fish are a nutritious source of protein and are high in essential omega-3 fatty acids. The most efficient way to produce large quantities of fish is to farm them. This avoids the unpredictability, danger and cost involved in trying to catch wild fish in rivers and oceans. Fish farming makes cheap fish available for people to eat: it should therefore be encouraged, not banned.
Leadership crisis is only worsened by not passing $700b plan

Government may lack credibility among the public. Yet, this public perception has no relation to the actual capacity of government to solve economic problems. The $700 bailout plan provided a good means to solving the economic crisis. It should have been adopted irrespective of public perception. Furthermore, Congressmen that voted against a bailout plan obviously cannot rely on the argument that the people "don't trust us" to justify their "no" vote.
Needed bail-out won't undermine lessons of US financial crisis

Robert J. Shiller. "Everybody Calm Down. A Government Hand In the Economy Is as Old as the Republic." Washington Post. 28 Sept. 2008 - "By rescuing Wall Street tycoons who succumbed to the lure of an irrationally exuberant housing bubble, the bailouts today do pose something of a moral-hazard problem. But we can more than repair it by defining a new generation of financial contracts, with a continuation of our evolving thinking about moral hazard, reflecting greater enlightenment, greater understanding of human psychology and the means to deal with financial failure."
US economic crisis is not that bad; $700b plan over-adjusts

Larry Elder. "Failure To Be Real Capitalists Caused Crisis" Investors Business Daily. 25 Sept. 2008 - "We are experiencing "the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"!...Even if this were true, we aren't even close to that catastrophic event. At the Great Depression's nadir, 25% of adults were unemployed, including nearly 50% of urban black adults. Economist David Wheelock of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis says that by the dawn of 1934, nearly half the urban homes with mortgages were in default, and 7.3% of housing structures had been foreclosed. Today, 6.4% of mortgages are delinquent, 2.75% are in the foreclosure process, and 0.6% of all housing units are bank-owned."
Government should buy stock in banks, not just bail them out

"The $700+ Billion Bailout--Posner". The Becker Posner Blog. 25 Sept. 2008 - "A more palatable approach would be for the government to drive a Warren Buffett style hard bargain, in which, rather than buying anything from banks, the government would invest in them in a form, such as purchase of newly issued preferred stock, or bonds with a long maturity, that would augment the banks' capital and thus enable banks to make more loans. That would avoid conferring a windfall on the banks by overpaying them for their bad securities; no one thinks Buffett is conferring a windfall on Goldman Sachs. After the industry was back on its feet, the government could sell the bank stocks or bonds that it had acquired."
$700b bailout is unjustified over majority taxpayer opposition

A Bloomberg-Los Angeles Times poll of more than 1,400 Americans, found 55 percent of respondents opposed the 700b bailout plan. 33 percent were in favor and 14 percent weren't sure.[13] In a USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted on September 24th just 22% favoured Mr Paulson’s proposal while 56% wanted something different; only 11% preferred that no action be taken.[14] It is inappropriate for Congress to pass legislation over the opposition of the taxpayers they represent.
$700b plan bails-out risk-takers who need to learn lesson

Mark Stanford. "A Bailout for All Our Bad Decisions?". Washington Post. 26 Sept. 2008 - "For 200 years, the 'business model' in our country has rested on a simple fact: that while one may reap rewards from taking risks, one should also be prepared to face the consequences of those risks. Some of the proposed actions with regard to the credit market turn that business model on its head -- absolving those who took too much risk, or bought too much house, from the weight of their own choices. If Congress passes the proposed bailout, we will be destined to have far greater problems in time, leaving those who are prudent in their finances to foot the bill for those who are not."
$700 billion bailout plan is too little too late

"Proposed $700 Billion Bailout Is Too Little, Too Late to End the Debt Crisis; Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Bond Market". Weiss Research Inc. 25 Sept. 2008 - "New data and analysis demonstrate that the proposal before Congress for a $700 billion financial industry bailout is too little, too late to end the massive U.S. debt crisis...There should be no illusion that the $700 billion estimate proposed by the Administration will be enough to end the debt crisis. It could very well be just a drop in the bucket."
$700b bailout is consistent with US government interventionism

Robert J. Shiller. "Everybody Calm Down. A Government Hand In the Economy Is as Old as the Republic." Washington Post. 28 Sept. 2008 - "our economy is not a shining example of pure unfettered market forces. It never has been...From the outset, Washington envisioned some government involvement in the commercial system, even as he recognized that commerce should belong to the people...So is the government's bailout a major departure? Hardly. Today's federal involvement offers bailouts as a strictly temporary measure to prevent a system-wide financial calamity. This is entirely in keeping with our basic principles -- as long as the bailout promotes, rather than hinders, financial democracy."
$700b is no Wallstreet giveaway, but a taxpayer investment.

The nature of the $700b bailout does not, by its nature, bailout Wallstreet fat-cats. It is not a cash giveaway to Wallstreet banks. It involves, rather, government and taxpayers purchasing mortgage assets. These assets are then owned by the government and taxpayers and can even later be sold for a profit for taxpayers. This is, therefore, obviously not a cash-giveaway to Wallstreet fat-cats.
$700b bailout would increase US deficit and interest rates

"Proposed $700 Billion Bailout Is Too Little, Too Late to End the Debt Crisis; Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Bond Market". Weiss Research Inc. 25 Sept. 2008 - "II. Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Bond Market. There should also be no illusion that the market for U.S. government securities can absorb the additional burden of a $700 billion bailout without putting dramatic upward pressure on U.S. interest rates. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects the 2009 federal deficit will rise to $482 billion. But adding the cost of announced and proposed bailouts, now approximately $1 trillion, it is undeniable that the federal deficit could double or triple in a short period of time, driving interest rates sharply higher and aggravating the very debt crisis that the bailout plan seeks to alleviate."
Deregulation and free-market ideologies caused US economic crisis

Robert Kuttner. "Learning from 1929". The American Prospect. 30 Sept. 2008 - "the other lesson [from 1929] was the one "we" forgot -- not to let banks and other financial institutions turn themselves into casinos. It is helpful, in the spirit of Tonto's historic interrogatory to the Lone Ranger -- "What you mean, we?" -- to unpack that "we." The "we" who forgot the lessons included first and foremost Republican ideology -- deregulate everything and let markets run wild; secondly Bush administration regulatory officials who disdained even the regulations on the books; and third, the Wall Street Democrats who were de-regulation's willing enablers."
$700b plan saves economy and taxpayers, not just Wallstreet

Kenneth Lewis. "Main Street Needs the Treasury Plan". Wall Street. 26 Sept. 2008 - "This is not about how to bail out Wall Street. This is about saving the U.S. financial system for the benefit of American businesses, consumers and the economy at large. I believe that Mr. Paulson's plan will accomplish this goal. Congress should include provisions it feels are necessary to ensure oversight and accountability. And it should then pass the legislation as soon as possible."
$700 bailout wrongly trusts culprits to solve crisis

"We Need Another Choice". Daily Kos. 23 Sep. 2008 - "there's little stomach for bailing out what essentially turned into a Ponzi scheme backed by the largest players in the financial industry. Yes, they say they need a massive, trillion-dollar influx of cash to patch the crisis they themselves caused via irrational pricings of mortgage-related derivatives. But when someone has proven to be utterly financially incompetent, giving them a trillion dollars in the hopes that they merely don't blow it all too quickly is not confidence-inspiring."
Financial crisis requires and justifies strong executive powers.

The Constitution of the United States is designed to allow Congress to give major power to the Executive branch, in this case the Department of Treasury, in order to respond quickly and decisively to crises. The 2008 financial crisis is a good example of a situation in which Congress is justified in granting the Secretary of the Treasury with $700 billion to forestall what some fear could be the next Great Depression. This is appropriate and Constitutional, not least because it is necessary in the preservation of the Union.
$700b bailout gives treasury blank check

Nomi Prins. "The $700 Billion Bailout Plan's Fine Print". 24 Sept. 2008 - "Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan now has a name: the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. But even as Capitol Hill debates TARP, few seem to have noticed the proposal item that puts taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts. It's in Section 6, and the key phrase is this: 'The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.'
$700b bailout offers buyer for frozen mortgages; restores liquidity

Kenneth Lewis. "Main Street Needs the Treasury Plan". Wall Street. 26 Sept. 2008 - "Paulson Plan provides a plan Just as optimism in times of growth encourages an upward trend, pessimism in uncertain times can feed a downward trend. Allowing such a trend to gain strength is our great risk...The proposed rescue legislation accomplishes one simple goal: It provides a buyer (the Treasury) for financial assets that cannot be priced today because the market for such assets has temporarily frozen up, enabling financial institutions to stabilize their balance sheets, regain confidence in the system and one another, and start lending again."
$700b bailout must be implemented immediately to avoid crisis

Rep. Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama and Ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee - "Our time has run out. We're going to make a decision. There are no more alternatives. There are no other choices. Just this one choice. And I don't know about you, I believe every member of this body feels as if there's an awesome responsibility on our shoulders. This will be the most difficult decision I make in my 16 years in this body. And I have decided that the cost of not acting outweighs the cost of acting..."[4]
Too much regulation, not too little, caused US economic crisis

Jeff Jacoby. "Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco". Boston Globe. 28 Sept. 2008 - "while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits they weren't the ones who 'got us into this mess.' Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else...The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and 'redlining' because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites."
Most economists support the $700b US economic bailout plan

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor. "A Defense of the Paulson Plan". 25 Sept. 2008 - "The Treasury proposal to rescue the financial system has gotten a lot of grief lately, especially from the community of economics professors. A smart friend, who knows more about this topic than I do, emails me his response to the critics: 'Academic economists don't like the Treasury plan, but nearly all of the Wall Street economists are for it. You don't have to be all that cynical to say that the Wall Street economists are talking their book. But I'd like to think that there is at least in part a sense in which they are more attuned to the reality of the situation in credit markets -- that last week we were a day or two away from a breakdown of the financial system.'"
Paulson Plan does not allow for enough Congressional oversight

Paul Krugman. "Good ideas and lies". The Conscience of a Liberal. 23 Sept. 2008. - "the proposal actually did, of course, was explicitly rule out any oversight, plus grant immunity from future review: 'Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.'"
$700 it is more important to pass a plan than for it to be perfect.

Many critics of the $700 billion bailout argue that there are problems with the bill, and that little things here and there should be added. Some argue that there are disadvantages to the plan compared to the relative advantages of certain alternatives. But, as these nuances and alternatives are debates, and the passage of a bill is delayed, the economic crisis will continue its downward spiral. The advantages, therefore, of making a bailout plan perfect are outweighed by the costs of delaying the passage of a solution.
Paulson Plan justified without warrants; taxpayers still protected

Greg Mankiw. "A Defense of the Paulson Plan". Greg Mankiw Blog. 25 Sept. 2008 - "2. 'Taxpayers will be better off if Treasury gets warrants.'...This is essentially the assertion made in David Leonhart's column in the NY Times on Wednesday. And it again illustrates that we would all be better off if high schools taught the Modigliani-Miller theorem. MM implies that the price of the asset (again,assuming the auction gets it right) will adjust to offset the value of any warrants Treasury receives. In this case of a reverse auction, imagine that the price is set at $10. If Treasury instead demands a warrant for future gains of some sort, then the price will rise in the expected amount of the warrant -- say that's $2. Then the price Treasury pays for the asset will be $12. Some people might prefer to get $12 in cash and give up a warrant worth $2 in expected value. Fine, that's a choice to be made. But the assertion that somehow warrants are needed is simply wrong."
$700b plan has been corruptly influenced by Wallstreet

"Who’s Lobbying Congress On The Bailout?." CBS. 26 Sept. 2008 - "CBS News found 21 former staffers from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and House Financial Services Committees are now lobbyists for financial firms. Their job? To lobby those in Congress who will shape the financial bailout. The former staffers now represent hedge funds, private equity firms, investment banks and the failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
Advocates are fear-mongering to ram through $700b plan

"The $700 Billion Bailout". Gaia, blog post. 23rd Jan. 2008 - "Isn't anybody going to stop these people? Many of us bought into the Weapons of Mass Destruction line of bull, and see where that got us. And, oh yes, we were urged to act quickly on that one too, before the mushroom clouds started sprouting over American cities."
A border fence would bisect natural habitats and migrations

Conservation Chairwoman with the Sierra Club's Lower Rio Grande Valley Group, Mary Lou Campbell to the Associated Press 10/2/06 - "[Endangered species] move back and forth across the water. When you isolate a species, you also [alter] their gene pool...We're concerned about the overall animal population. I'm sure they would be cutting down trees and brush and underbrush to make way for this wall, and all of it will be destructive to wildlife."
A 700 mile fence will help secure the southern US border against a number of threats

"Border threat: Leaders look the other way", Sara Carter, Daily Bulletin 12/29/06 - "The increased smuggling of drugs, humans and who-knows-what-else through a burgeoning international trade route through Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and Laredo, Texas, is unsettling. So is the human carnage in the all-out battles among Mexican drug-smuggling cartels to control the Mexican trade route. Even more unsettling are the border crossings by 'special-interest aliens' - persons from countries that sponsor terrorism - and the 'culture of death' catching hold among drug smugglers, a culture that appears to share characteristics with terrorist fanaticism...The DEA warns in an intelligence report that Asian narcotics traffickers, in collusion with Mexican drug cartels and terrorist groups, could use the so-called Gateway to the Pacific - a plan to expand border trade through the two Laredos - to bring contraband into the United States. 'Contraband can be anything from narcotics, pirated videos, humans or weapons of mass destruction,' said a DEA spokesman...El Paso County Sheriff Leo Samaniego told a House committee in August that terrorist organizations are probing the border with the help of Mexican smugglers. Webb County, Texas, Sheriff Rick Flores testified before Congress about the growing violence in Laredo, which is spilling over from Nuevo Laredo."
Coupling a physical fence with new "virtual fence" technology will be effective:

DHS spokesman Jarrod Agen said to Fox 1/3/07, "It's beyond physical borders like fencing. It looks at how to deploy tech with fencing, which would mean camera systems, satellite, radar, sensors — all of that, lighting systems — how you integrate that with fencing and also integrate that with the Border Patrol on the ground so that they can deploy quickly and responsively to incursions along the border."
Federation for American Immigration Reform FAIR

There basic position on the H.R. 6061 and the 700-mile fence is presented in the following statement by FAIR President Dan Stein: "An additional 700 miles of border fencing and other security measures constitute an important first toward comprehensive immigration enforcement, but much more remains to be done if we are going to effectively stem the tide of illegal immigration and protect the nation’s security. Enhanced border enforcement must be followed with a comprehensive strategy for eliminating the magnet of jobs and benefits that draw illegals to this country."[14]
A 700-mile fence is only the first step in securing the whole southern border

Many opponents of a fence point out that it would leave over 1000 miles of border without any fencing, and that it is not directly tied to needed comprehensive immigration reform. However, numerous sources maintain that such a fence could conceivably be added to with time, potentially completing a fence that spans the entire border, and that the border fence legislation is only a first step in a broader comprehensive immigration reform process.
Illegal immigrants will climb over a 700-mile fence

After the construction of the San Diego fence, many illegal immigrants began crossing through the Arizona desert, which caused many of San Diego's border agents to move out there. According to T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the main union for Border Patrol agents, "Tucson now has 2,600 agents. San Diego has lost 1,000 agents. Guess where the traffic is going? Back to San Diego. San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country, and yet it's not stopping people from coming across."[6]
Increased border controls have not historically decreased illegal immigration

Council on Foreign Relations 2/21/06 - "A study done by Wayne Cornelius, a political science professor and director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego, showed that stronger border controls have either 'no statistically significant effect' on the propensity to migrate, or actually encourage migrants to stay in the United States longer. Cornelius found that, among the Mexicans surveyed in his study, 37 percent stayed in the United States longer than they had planned to because of the new regulations, and 79 percent knew someone who remained in the United States because of stronger border controls. Experts say that ultimately, stricter border controls and higher penalties will not stop illegal immigration because they don't address the root causes of the problem: a stagnant Mexican economy and strong demand for cheap labor in the U.S. market."
"Virtual fences" have had poor historical results

According to The Washington Post 09/20/06, the Homeland Security inspector general reported in December that since 1998, the Department of Homeland Security and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service spent $429 million on video and remote surveillance on the borders. Yet, nearly half of 489 cameras were never installed, 60 percent of sensor alerts are never investigated, 90 percent of the rest are false alarms, and only 1 percent overall resulted in arrests. In the same article, Doris Meissner, former INS commissioner was reported as saying, "There has been a huge amount of money poured into the border . . . but the track record of the performance of these technologies is disappointing."