BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Online gambling affects families

A parent who gambles can quickly lose the money their family depends on for food and rent. It is a common cause of family break-up and homelessness, so governments should get involved to protect innocent children from getting hurt [5]. Each problem gambler harmfully impacts 10-15 other people [6]. The internet makes it easy for gamblers to bet secretly, without even leaving the house, so people become addicted to gambling without their families realising what is going on until too late.
Online gambling encourages crime

Human trafficking, forced prostitution and drugs provide $2.1 billion a year for the Mafia but they need some way through which to put this money into circulation. Online gambling is that way in. They put dirty money in and win clean money back [8]. Because it is so international and outside normal laws, it makes criminal cash hard to track. There is a whole array of other crime associated with online gambling; hacking, phishing, extortion, and identity fraud, all of which can occur on a large scale unconstrained by physical proximity [9]. Online gambling also encourages corruption in sport. By allowing huge sums of money to be bet internationally on the outcome of a game or race, it draws in criminals who can try to bribe or threaten sportsmen.
Cant enforce an online gambling ban

Governments can’t actually do anything to enforce a ban on the world wide web. Domestic laws can only stop internet companies using servers and offices in their own country. They cannot stop their citizens going online to gamble using sites based elsewhere. Governments can try to block sites they disapprove of, but new ones will keep springing up and their citizens will find ways around the ban. So practically there is little the government can do to stop people gambling online. Despite it being illegal the American Gambling Association has found that 4% of Americans already engage in online gambling [11].
Other forms of online gambling

What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?
Gambling is addictive.

Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts, simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. The large majority of people who gamble online keep to clear limits and stop when they reach them. The few people with a problem with being addicted will still find ways to gamble if gambling is illegal either through a casino, or else still online but in a black market that offers no help and that may use criminal violence to enforce payment.
Only regulation can mitigate harms

It is only in the interests of big gambling sites that aim to create a long term business to go along with tough regulation. Online gambling sites can get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers. In the real world governments can ban bets being taken from children and drunks. They can make sure that the odds are not changed to suit the House. And they can check that people running betting operations don’t have criminal records. In online gambling on the other hand 50% of players believe that internet casino’s cheat [14].
Government only objects to online gambling because they dont benefit

Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is make sure that their people gamble in safe circumstances. This means real world that casinos and other betting places that can easily be monitored. The examples of government using gambling for their own purposes are really the government turning gambling into a benefit for the country. Physical casinos benefit the economy and encourage investment, and lotteries can be used to raise money for good causes. Online gambling undermines all this, as it can be sited anywhere in the world but can still compete with, and undercut organised national betting operations.
Gambling is bad for you.

Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the House always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? The harm is not just the loss of money and possible bankruptcy; it causes depression, insomnia, and other stress related disorders [4]. The internet has made gambling so much easier to do and encouraged lots of new people to place bets so dramatically multiplying the harm.
Gambling is addictive.

Humans get a buzz from taking a risk and the hope that this time their luck will be in, this is similar to drug addicts [7]. The more people bet, the more they want to bet, so they become hooked on gambling which can wreck their lives. Internet gambling is worse because it is not a social activity. Unlike a casino or race track, you don’t have to go anywhere to do it, which can put a brake on the activity. The websites never shut. There won’t be people around you to talk you out of risky bets. There is nothing to stop you gambling your savings away while drunk.
Personal freedom

Gambling is a leisure activity enjoyed by many millions of people. Governments should not tell people what they can do with their own money. Those who don’t like gambling should be free to buy adverts warning people against it, but they should not be able to use the law to impose their own beliefs. Online gambling has got rid of the rules that in the past made it hard to gamble for pleasure and allowed many more ordinary people to enjoy a bet from time to time. It provides the freedom to gamble, whenever and wherever and with whatever method the individual prefers.
Only regulation can mitigate harms

It is where the sites operate, not where they are set up that matters for regulation. It is in gambling sites interest to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it. Regulation will mean that sites will have to verify the age of their users and prevent problem gamblers from accessing their site. When there is regulation consumers will go to the sites that are verified by their government and are providing a legal, safe service [13].
Government only objects to online gambling because they dont benefit

Governments are hypocritical about gambling. They say they don’t like it but they often use it for their own purposes. Sometimes they only allow gambling in certain places in order to boost a local economy. Sometimes they profit themselves by running the only legal gambling business, such as a National Lottery [15] or public racecourse betting. This is bad for the public who want to gamble. Online gambling firms can break through government control by offering better odds and attractive new games.
Cant enforce an online gambling ban

Governments have the power to ban online gambling in their own country. Even if citizens could use foreign websites, most will not choose to break the law. When the United States introduced its Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 gambling among those of college-age fell from 5.8% to 1.5% [12]. Blocking the leading websites will also be effective, as it makes it very hard for them to build a trusted brand. And governments can stop their banks handling payments to foreign gambling companies, cutting off their business.
Other forms of online gambling

Gambling is quite different from buying stocks and shares. With the stock market investors are buying a stake in an actual company. This share may rise or fall in value, but so can a house or artwork. In each case there is a real asset that is likely to hold its value in the long term, which isn’t the case with gambling. Company shares and bonds can even produce a regular income through dividend and interest payments. It is true that some forms of financial speculation are more like gambling – for example the derivatives market or short-selling, where the investor does not actually own the asset being traded. But these are not types of investment that ordinary people have much to do with. They are also the kinds of financial activity most to blame for the financial crisis, which suggests we need more government control, not less.
Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive to design and build, yet will likely have no new strategic value.

Much of the technology of tactical nuclear weapons is still in the early stages of development. While many of the weapons, such as the RNEP, cannot yet be applied in the field, their eventual development could open the door to a broad range of strategic considerations. For that reason, it is imperative that work in this field continue, to guarantee that states can have the best defenses available to them and the greatest tactical flexibility in the event of conflict.
The way tactical nuclear weapons need to be deployed control of their use is devolved to field commanders, vastly increasing the probability that in the event of conflict they would be used.

Safeguards can be put in place to ensure that power over nuclear weapons is not devolved too far. Central control of launch codes, for example, can allow dispersed deployment and tactical control, without compromising the overall strategic security of the weapons. Furthermore, in the case of Pakistan, it seems more likely that its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons will simply serve as an additional deterrent to potential Indian incursions into the country. It is Pakistan's right to defend itself by whatever means available to it, tactical nuclear weapons included.
Designing and constructing tactical nuclear weapons allow a state's scientists to maintain a competitive position in nuclear technology.

Research and development into tactical nuclear weapons are essential for countries to maintain their technological edge in the field of nuclear science. The United States has long enjoyed technological dominance in the field of nuclear weaponry. However, in recent years China and Russia have begun to pour effort into developing ever-smaller nuclear weapons for tactical deployment. If the United States and the other nuclear powers wish to maintain their position within the nuclear tech order, they must begin investing further in development of similar miniaturized nuclear devices. Research into the design and construction of mini-nukes provides a number of benefits beyond the tactical flexibility conferred by such weapons. First, developing mini-nukes puts designers and scientists in the West on the same intellectual page as those seeking to devise nuclear weapons suitable for use in terrorist attacks, such as so-called suitcase-nukes1. By learning how to build such weapons scientists will be able to devise means of counteracting them should an enemy attempt to employ them in an attack. Furthermore, the miniaturization of nuclear weapons has applications in other nuclear technologies such as in the design and manufacture of smaller nuclear power facilities. Military technology always finds an outlet in civilian use. Such was case with Cold War technological endeavors, such as the Space Race, which yielded everything from superior computer processors to ballpoint pens. Clearly, the public will in many ways reap the boons arising from the development of smaller tactical nuclear weapons. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.
The feeling of security generated by possession of tactical nuclear weapons will give states the political will to decommission standing nuclear arsenals.

Development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons can be viewed as a suitable replacement for the thousands of strategic nuclear missiles and launchers being decommissioned as part of the recently ratified New START between Russia and the United States, which represents a major step toward non-proliferation of strategic nuclear weapons. The treaty exempts tactical nuclear weapons by omitting them from the language of the treaty, including as yet undeveloped miniature warheads, as both the United States and Russia have come to see the possession and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as key to their national security. Replacing large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons with a smaller quantity of lower capacity tactical weapons marks a major movement away from proliferation of potentially world-destroying weaponry. Furthermore, the movement from proliferation of unusable strategic weapons to tactically viable, smaller nuclear weapons can be used as a means of allaying the fears of citizens in the United States, Russia, and other countries pursuing policies of non-proliferation that their countries nuclear defenses are not only still viable, but more practicable.
Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive to design and build, yet will likely have no new strategic value.

Countries have spent many billions of dollars developing tactical nuclear weapons in recent decades in the hope of maintaining their positions as nuclear powers with access to a whole range of terrifying weapons. However, little real applicability exists for most of these weapons. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), being developed in the United States at enormous cost, is designed to burrow deep underground to destroy enemy bunkers, yet it is as yet unusable, since the weapon cannot as yet burrow even a tenth of the distance underground necessary to prevent considerable radioactive fallout in the area surrounding the blast site1. In fact, many scientists say the weapon is a chimera and will never be capable of doing what it is meant to without risking huge collateral damage. Furthermore, it is unlikely that many states would consider the use of nuclear weapons appropriate, regardless of size. This international taboo should be considered a positive step toward peace, and not be tampered with by overzealous governments seeking strategic advantage. Overall, tactical nuclear weapons will likely prove to be little more than expensive dust-gatherer in most cases. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".
The way tactical nuclear weapons need to be deployed control of their use is devolved to field commanders, vastly increasing the probability that in the event of conflict they would be used.

Tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller than their strategic counterparts, and are designed to be deployed in higher numbers and nearer the enemy. This reality has a number of very negative consequences when considering the likelihood of nuclear war. First, control over tactical nuclear weapons is necessarily devolved to field commanders, since they control both the warheads and delivery systems for the weapons deployed near the enemy. This necessarily increases the likelihood of trigger-happy commanders using nuclear weapons, and little practical means of stopping them. Second, because of their deployment positions, should an enemy make an incursion into a country's territory, its tactical nuclear weapons batteries could risk capture by the invader. This generates a "use them or lose them" problem, and when coupled with the fact that the weapons are under the direct control of individual field commanders, the weapons might well be used. The result would likely be rapid escalation of hostilities, and possibly full-scale nuclear war. In Pakistan, for example, tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed and war games practiced for the eventuality of an Indian invasion (The Economist, 2011). The risks of war and of nuclear holocaust are only raised by tactical nuclear weapons. 1 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.
Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology.

Conventional weapons are perfectly capable of dealing with the issues and conflicts for which tactical nuclear weapons are designed, and are less risky to employ. The predictions by the United States government that the RNEP would produce little fallout, for example, appear unfounded. On the contrary, the weapon would likely scatter deadly nuclear fallout for miles around a target site, causing terrible destruction and collateral damage1. Furthermore, developments in conventional weapons can serve the same purposes, if with slightly greater difficulty. New super bunker-buster bombs are in development in the United States that do not carry a nuclear payload, and fuel-air bombs can, with their wide incendiary range, destroy factories and incinerate any hazardous materials quite effectively. New nuclear weapons are not necessary for the tactical concerns of the future. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".
Tactical nuclear warheads are more serviceable for use in intimidation and retaliation toward enemies, as they are considerably less catastrophically destructive than those of current nuclear arsenals.

All rogue states that might attack the United States or other Western countries would likely be unable to withstand a conventional military attack from one of them. For this reason, any retaliation to a crude nuclear attack from a rogue state would more likely, and more justifiably, incur retaliation by conventional military force. With its massive conventional bombs, air and sea dominance, and tactical superiority, the United States, for example would be better served by responding to nuclear aggression with overwhelming conventional firepower. Rather than validating nuclear retaliation, and thus opening the door to similar responses in the future, it is better to respond to such situations with conventional power.
All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons.

While states should of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too has the international community generally acknowledged that nuclear proliferation is negative, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation [1]. It is a tragedy that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement, to keep nuclear weapons in as few hands as possible so as to prevent their development, testing, and use by rogue states, terrorists, and other dangers to international security. This is all the more true of tactical nuclear weapons, whose smaller size and destructive capacity make them not only easier for terrorists to acquire, but also to be used, and thus to instigate a rapid escalation to full-scale nuclear war. [1] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues. Available: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/67/nuclear-weapons
Moving nuclear diplomacy away from the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction undermines world stability.

MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. It has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used1. At the same time, should a nuclear weapon be used by a rogue state against another country, that country must have some means of retaliation. The problem is that the weapon likely to be used in such an attack will be crude and incapable of doing the sort of damage that a refined nuclear weapon of the Western nuclear powers could. This makes the question of what constitutes a proportional response difficult to answer. Should North Korea, for example, ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, its crude missiles will warrant a response, but quite possibly not a strategic nuclear missile-sized response. For this reason, the development of smaller, more versatile nuclear weapons makes these strategic considerations easier to manage, and allows for a range of responses left unavailable by the current blunt instrument of strategic nuclear missiles. 1 Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
The development of tactical nuclear weapons by one state would lead to a new global arms race.

There is no real risk of a new global arms race arising from the development of tactical nuclear weapons. No country is suggesting, nor would ever likely suggest, a relaxing of controls on the use of nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons are simply more advanced, more discriminating nuclear weapons. They would not be used except in the utmost extremity, as with all nuclear weapons. While tactical nuclear weapons may find greater applicability in the field, it does not mean they would result in a new arms race.
Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology.

There are a number of technological developments that have made the use of conventional weapons ineffective in combating certain threats. For example, some bunkers are buried so deeply underground that conventional bombs cannot penetrate them. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), currently in development in the United States, would be able to penetrate such bunkers, while leaving no more surface damage than a conventional bomb1. Deployment of a weapon such as the RNEP might prove necessary in order to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue states, as for example, Iran has built extremely tough bunkers for the purpose of nuclear testing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Blocking the development of necessary tactical nuclear technologies actually raises the chances of these dangerous states obtaining nuclear weapons. Another instance of tactical nuclear devices proving useful is in the destruction of clandestine biological and chemical weapons factories. Were such facilities destroyed by conventional bombing, some of the materials being manufactured could easily leak into neighbouring population areas, leading to increased casualties. Clearly, in light of these defense innovations, tactical nuclear weapons are an essential addition to a nuclear power's arsenal. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News.