BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses

While the American Jobs Act gives help to small businesses it does nothing to help proven companies that already have a record of success as is shown by their size. Indeed these companies may even be hit by the revenue raising side of the act. It is often the wealthy- both businesses and individuals- that engage in enterprise and risky expansions into new markets. A lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable and more appealing. Promoting private enterprise and risk taking is a key strategy in resolving recessions. It is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets, which drive demand. An increase in the tax burden of America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations is problematic. It impedes this growth and innovation-led recovery strategies. It is important to note that the risk the American economy needs to promote is risk that is well regulated and, further, is risk in non-critical and emerging industries. As such this point is distinct from the second point of opposition and must be presented as so, otherwise, it risks a misunderstanding with judges.10
The American Jobs Act Will Help the Long Term Unemployed

Whilst long term unemployment is an issue within America, it is not an issue to be focused on during a time of economic recovery and potential recession again. In a recession there are significantly more people who suffer from temporary unemployment because businesses that are unable to survive the hardships of the recession often shut down. This means following a recession there are a large number of skilled workers in the work force who lack jobs. As  recovery gains pace, these workers are re-employed at a greater rate than other workers are made redundant. Given that these people are already skilled and can already make a very significant contribution to the economy, it seems illogical that a bill intended to promote economic recovery should focus on the long-term unemployed at all. Presumably, most people who suffer from long term unemployment will take a few years to acquire the skills needed to meaningfully contribute to the economy. At this point, the economy will likely already be out of recession. This is indicated by the fact that in the latest recovery period, long term unemployment rose presumably because the extra employment capacity in the economy was just being retaken by those who were temporarily unemployed.2 It is more beneficial that the state concentrates entirely on bringing the country out of recession and recovery and into a period of sustainable growth more quickly. Under these circumstances, the state will have more resources to divert to the long term unemployed, as fewer people will require help due to temporary unemployment. The state can then focus on assisting these individuals, so that when the next recession comes state services will be ready to ease the damage.
The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class

The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive. The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks. Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4 As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions.
The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs

The American Jobs Act may be projected to create a lot of jobs. However, this comes following tax cuts and a fiscal stimulus package in 2009. In the past these measures to help the economy failed, with unemployment remaining stagnant at around 25 million despite the efforts by the government in 2009. The reason this occurred in 2009 is that despite the stimulus package there was a strong degree of uncertainty within the economy. As such, even though consumers and producers were facing a lower tax burden it became apparent that neither group was willing to take big risks in a highly uncertain economic environment. The possibility of recession was all too apparent, and this affected both business and consumer confidence. Given the Eurozone crisis at the moment, the situation in 2011 is very similar, with much of the world economy waiting on the outcome in Europe to see whether recession or recovery awaits. Such a climate is not conducive to risk taking on the part of firms. Hiring extra workers, for example, might be a profitable activity, however, it also entails significant risk as the firm has to be able to guarantee that it will get more out of the worker than it ends up paying. The current state of world markets is not conducive to a stimulus package and it would simply be better to wait out the Eurozone crisis and then deal with the coming problems in an environment that is more confident and that is populated by actors equipped with greater understanding of the direction of the world and American economies.6
The American Jobs Act is Not Deficit Neutral

Even if the American jobs act is not deficit neutral, it will have a significant effect in the future, through spending more in the present to speed the American recovery period and prevent a double dip recession. During the boom period it will be significantly easier to pay any increased deficit back. Further, even if the American credit rating is to be downgraded further, changes in the credit rating are played to be more significant than they actually are. The Japanese for example have had their credit rating downgraded by Moody’s to Aa3, however, bond interest in Japan is 2% at its highest levels on long term Japanese bonds whereas it is 3% in the U.S.7 The change in the credit rating of Japan did very little to increase interest on its bonds. The reason is that investors still believe that Japan is a stable market despite its deficit which amounts to 233% of annual economic output. As such, even if the credit rating of the U.S. does get downgraded it is likely to do little in terms of increasing U.S. bond repayments over time. Further, financing the American Jobs Act through a greater deficit could be seen by many rating agencies as a fiscally responsible move and as such would not lead to them downgrading the rating at all.8
The American Jobs Act Encourages Risk Without Infrastructure or Results in Inaction By

Whilst the jobs act does not fully cover infrastructure, more acts can be drafted in order to deal with this problem. Further, the financial sector is likely to now be significantly more wary of the problems that initially caused the recession. This is because the collapse of Lehman and the Sub Prime crisis as well as the following recession significantly hurt their businesses. As such, especially so soon after the global banking crisis, such companies are going to be more careful about taking unnecessary risks. Whilst this attitude might decay over time, by the time it has decayed enough that action must be taken, it is likely that America will be out of recession. Further, it is believed that right now, the general health of the corporate sector is sound. This means that whilst there is the possibility that businesses will opt not to use tax breaks to increase wages and pay debt, it is fairly unlikely. Even if another recession hits, the current strength of the corporate sector is such that it is likely to be able to weather the storm and as such, CEOs are likely to wish to spend windfall that they do get in order to get ahead of the competition for the next boom phase.9
Nationalism promotes cooperation and social cohesion

Far from promoting cooperation and social cohesion nationalism as much divides nations as unites them. It is no longer the case that almost everyone in a country will identify themselves the same way as there are increasing population movements. Moreover very few nations’ borders fit ethnic or linguistic boundaries. This means that nationalism’s darker side will have much more of an impact. Nationalism causes internal ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nationalism has caused numerous genocides, including but not limited to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the breakup of Yugoslavia. This is the inevitable result of nationalism's focus upon definition - "we" are "us" because we are not like "them" - and so encouragement to exclusion and antagonism. This applies as much to groups within the state, where "the other" is seen as both inferior and as a threat, as to other states with different ethnic and cultural traditions.
Not all nationalism is exclusive

Nationalism is only benign in the sense that it is an improvement on local tribalism – the good is derived from the expanded size of the group for which individuals are willing to work towards the advantage of. By these standards civic nationalism is definitely a step forward and is much less divisive than any ethnically based nationalism but it does not go far enough. The natural conclusions of this reasoning is that the greatest good would come from us moving beyond nationalism and conceive of ourselves as being collective members of the human race, or further, as a part of the ecosystem of the Earth.
Nationalism creates diversity

Diversity is not always a good thing – there are major advantages to there being less diversity if it means that we can understand each other. Better understanding does not just mean less conflict but is also beneficial to the economy as there can be more trade – something which nationalism can often block due to worries over other countries taking jobs. Nationalism does not celebrate this diversity; cultures can be kept and celebrated without an all-consuming national identity and indeed many of these cultures are based on smaller regional, local or religious identities all of which would be much easier to preserve if they did not have to conform with a national identity.
Nationalism is no longer relevant

Nationalism is still the most important political force in the world and has moved on from its history of conflict to being a much more neutral organising principle that holds territories together.[1] Nation states are workable political units. On one hand they are small enough that the people feel a connection to their government and can hold it accountable. On the other hand, they are large enough for those governments to be rich and powerful enough to make a difference (e.g. running a welfare state, transferring wealth from prosperous regions to economically depressed ones, having a meaningful foreign policy). It is wrong to consider nationalism to be any more detrimental to human rights than any other ideology and states with strong national identities are among the most likely to promote human rights, for example the United States. In this way, nationalism, and the nation state to which it aspires, is a force for democracy and good government. International organisations, by contrast, are undemocratic in nature and impossible to hold accountable for incompetence and corruption.   [1] Walt, Stephen M, ‘Nationalism Rules’, ForeignPolicy.com, 15 July 2011.
Nationalism as an ideology is oppressive towards women

Some forms of Nationalism may oppress women but there is no intrinsic reason why it must do so. For a start this assumes that the only type of nationalism is ethnic nationalism, which as already noted is very different from civic nationalism.  It is also important to note that where it locks women into gender roles it also locks men into a gender role – that might be a ‘superior’ role, but that is a problem with that societies’ perception of gender roles, not with their perception of nationalism. The creation of a national gender identity may actually benefit the position of women in the absence of the existence of a pre-existing one.[1][2]   [1] Jayawardena, Kumari ‘Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World’, Zed Books Ltd 1986. [2] Hills and Silverman, ‘Nationalism and Feminism in Late Colonial India: The Rani of Jhansi Regiment 1943-1945’, Modern Asian Studies (1993), 27: pp 741-760
Nationalism promotes cooperation and social cohesion

Nationalism is a sense of fellow-feeling between group members. This promotes cooperation and social cohesion within the group. Nationalism  and the identity it brings creates a social glue which binds otherwise different people together, that sense of social cooperation makes welfare, social security and medical programs much more likely and stronger. It also may make for a smoother political process when there is a solid basis for consensus. Those who are net contributors to the system need something to make them feel that what they are doing is worthwhile and in their interests; something a national identity provides as it creates a sense of belonging that transcends economic interests. In Canada for example those who strongly identify with Canada are much more likely to support redistribution and healthcare than those with low identification with Canada.[1] Societies with a healthy sense of nationalism are more likely to provide for each other and avoid the plight of poverty or poor health.   [1] Banting et al., ‘National Identity and Support for the Welfare State’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.43, No.2, (2010), pp.349-377, (full draft text freely available)
National identity was necessary for independence

Nationalism has been a potent force for self-determination in colonial territories. The profoundly misunderstood Vietnamese independence movement, as well as most African liberation movements of the 1940s and 1950s drew heavily on the idea of nationhood to mobilise their people against a foreign exploitative power. Other examples include India, Indonesia, Guinea, and Guyana. Most often these states, once independence has been achieved, see a fracturing of nationalism that prevents those nationalist impulses from being used to condone violence against minority populations. Meanwhile in big multi-ethnic states, most notably India and Indonesia nationalism has been used positively to keep the state and its many ethnicities united my making a higher level of identity above the regional identities that in many other areas of the world would have become a national identity.[1]   [1] Jennings, Ivor, The Approach to Self-Government, Cambridge University press 2011,  p.3.
Not all nationalism is exclusive

Nationalism can take many benign forms, such as that of civic nationalism, where a shared sense of national identity is created and reinforced by institutions, not ethnicity or history. The starting point of civic nationalism is not an ethnic group but the state’s territorial borders. It focuses on citizenship, civic rights and legal codes where all citizens are equal.[1] Civic nationalism has taken firmest root in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is an inclusive kind of nationalism that accepts any individual into its institutions. Nationalism can provide cultural and political glue for strong democratic institutions that can win out over forms of ethnic exclusion or political repression.   [1] Nikolas, Margareta Mary, ‘False Opposites in Nationalism: An Examination of the Dichotomy of Civic Nationalism and Ethnic Nationalism in Modern Europe’, 11 March 1999.
Nationalism creates diversity

According to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[1] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects.   [1] Miscevic, Nenad, "Nationalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Nationalism is no longer relevant

Nationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The future lies in an internationalist approach that stresses our common humanity, rather than emphasising those small differences that have been used by nationalists to divide us. In particular, nationalism stands against the widespread establishment of human rights, as it places absolute national sovereignty above the individual rights of all citizens. China for example rejects interference in domestic affairs subordinating human rights to the state.[1] This makes it impossible for the international community to protect properly the human rights of those living under oppression and dictatorship. Supranational organisations such as the United Nations and European Union provide a way forward for the different peoples of the world to cooperate towards common goals of peace and prosperity, while still respecting and celebrating diversity.    [1] Baxter, Ben, ‘The Rise of China and the Fall of Human Rights’, The Perspectivist, 12 April 2011.
Nationalism is used as a fig leaf for bad government

Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership regimes that are politically and economically corrupt, such as the National Salvation Front of Romania, Communist China, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and North Korea, exploit existing senses of nationalism to disguise the fact that they mismanage and oppress their countries. Oppression can be justified as being for the country while the country’s resources are mismanaged with justifications that the resources should only be used for natives, such policies lead to land takeovers in Zimbabwe and the subsequent collapse of the economy.[1] They use nationalism as an irrational base of support for irrational policies. The people would do more to change their regimes if their minds were not clouded by emotionally-charged feelings of nationalism.   [1] BBC News, ‘Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe land seizures ‘cost $12bn’’, 3 August 2011.
Nationalism as an ideology is oppressive towards women

Nationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's health and security is tied to its birth rate. This leads to pro-"natalist" policies that violate the reproductive and civil rights of women. Romania is a good example of when nationalist thinking tramples the rights of women, leading to forced birthing for most Romanians and horrifying illegal sterilisations for the minority Roma population.
The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant.

This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences[1]. This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict. [1]The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.
The current system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals.

While recidivism is obviously a problem, this motion fails to take into account any situation where an individual has previously committed a crime but is innocent of the crime going to trial. Given that conviction rates soar when previous convictions are disclosed[1], this motion doesn’t rebalance the justice system to cater for the victims, but risks seriously prejudicing those who are innocent of the crime going to trial. A wrongful conviction is just as bad as a wrongful acquittal; the prejudicial effects on the jury’s ability to make a verdict[2] undermines the objectivity of the justice system, and seriously risks the possibility of a fair trial. [1]The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003. [2]The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.
Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.

If anything, this is an argument to prevent the media from publishing and details of a case or its defendant before the trial has been carried out, or from being more proactive and disqualifying jurors who ‘research’ their case before it comes to court. We should not endorse this kind of behaviour, which jurors know is not allowed, by legitimising it within court and announcing previous convictions. The harm of bias, particularly among those who would go out of their way to read about the personal history of a defendant, could be incredibly dangerous to the principle of a fair trial.
We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.

Better training for jurors could easily override this problem. If we continue to use juries as an essential part of the justice system, it is important to make sure that they are as well-informed as possible. Ensuring that they are blind to the truth is not a legitimate way to achieve a fair or unbiased verdict; rather, it innately limits the accuracy of any verdict and confines it to only a portion of the truth.
Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

This point places too much importance on the defendant’s history. In any case, records of their previous convictions must be heard alongside of the facts of the primary crime; any history will always be tempered by discussion of the actual crime. Satisfaction from the justice system will be greater if the public are aware that juries are not simply allowing past offenders to walk free; and if police and prosecution forces are found to be failing at their jobs, then this should be separately addressed and regulated.