BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.

When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy.   Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data.  Voters become the consumers of political marketing.  The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive   dialogue.   Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement.   Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus.  The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.
Citizens should be respected for their opinions

Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making.   This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible.  The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis. Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms.  There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability.  Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility.  The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability.  Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention.   For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition.  A well conducted poll can be very accurate.   It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points.[1]   Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research.  There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions.   It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls.   The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals.  Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals. [1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/mef/mef03/mef03c
Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.

The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting.  In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face.   Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use.   To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically.   That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product.  Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need.[1] [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx
Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.

The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters.   Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation.  The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused.  Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences.  Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade.   To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions.  It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician.  The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.
Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.

The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election.  However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published.  The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy.  Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point.   Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression.   We have no facts about the size of this population.   The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm.    If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely?   The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.
Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected

The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied.  Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist.   There are restrictions related to the public good.  The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited.  Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society. Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning.  Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression. Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency.   However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process.  Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.
Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.

There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices.  We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens.  This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue.   Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice.  The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address.   We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria.  Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged.   The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.
Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.

It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public.  The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”.  Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful.  Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held.   Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends.  Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs.  Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls.  The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed.[1] [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx
Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.

Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question.   A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans,[1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way.  For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’.[2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims.   Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results.   For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc.   These measures are usually not published.  Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation.  One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.  Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur.[3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions. [1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/266932/latest-ap-poll-sample... [2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, http://qmss.columbia.edu/files_qmss/imce_shared/Abroff_Thesis_01_06_10.pdf [3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004,  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php
Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.

This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting.   This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time.  For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted.  Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls.  There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice.  Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions.  Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.
Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected

They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech.   Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas.  Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard. Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech.   For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period. Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging.  Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally.  In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists.   These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.
Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.

It is their right to select the criteria for making decisions.   Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation.  However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote.  Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance.   Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others.  However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote.  Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.
Local cuisine deserves to be celebrated

Shopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food cultures. The Slow Food movement emphasises the cultural importance of local cuisines based upon the range of foods that are available within a particular region. By treating the whole world as our larder we have gained an enormous choice of foods, but at the cost of our own culinary heritage and folk traditions. This can cause problems as for example with local varieties of rice in Africa being lost due to competition from cheaper rice producers like Thailand.[1] Each individual cuisine deserves to be preserved and encouraged. We have also lost a sense of seasonality, expecting asparagus and strawberries all year round. Local food restores this connection with the rhythm of the seasons, and connects us to the land around us and to our ancestors who helped to shape it. [1] Taylor D., ‘NGO tries to “Rediscover” Traditional African Food’, Voice of America, 9 June 2011.
Prevents Monoculture

By creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage local farmers to grow and rear a wide variety of crops and animals. Intensive modern farming often consists of huge agribusinesses growing monocultures of wheat, corn, rape or soya over vast areas, with little room left for nature. In Britain this has led to a decline in farmland birds with numbers at a 44 year low,[1]  Even livestock farming can impose one type of farming practice upon the environment and drive out plants and animals which cannot cope with those methods. More varied farming practices are valuable for promoting biodiversity, encouraging a whole range of birds, animals and plants to establish themselves in field margins and adjacent wild areas.[2] Local variety is also good farming practice, as it means that any disease or pest infestation will not be able to spread quickly to devastate a whole region. [1] Meikle, James, ‘Farmland bird numbers in England fall to record low’, guardian.co.uk, 29 July 2010. [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘Europe’s farmland birds in decline’, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.
Supports the local economy

Shopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – and if it is the retailer who is buying locally then whether the retailer itself is not local will not matter. Typically farmers are forced to sell to middlemen or big business, such as huge supermarket corporations. This means growers see only a small fraction of the price the public eventually pays in the store[1] (as little as 18 cents of every dollar in the USA). This drives down farm incomes and is forcing many farmers off the land as they can no longer make a living. By selling directly to the public at farmers’ markets and farm shops instead, producers can ensure that they get a fair price for their crops and livestock.[2] The income this provides is particularly crucial for small producers, and for farmers committed to more sustainable, less intensive methods, such as organic production. It does not only help the farmers, but also the rest of the economy. While many experts confess that it is hard to measure the direct effects of buying local products, Dan Houston from an economic development consultancy projected in 2002 with the example of Austin book stores that buying local saves jobs. He explained that on every dollar to the Austin economy, 45 cents returns, while with buying at the national store Borders, the return to the community is only 13 cents. Also the researcher emphasized that in the Michigan community Grand Rapids, a 10 % shift of spending towards local businesses in 2008 could create 1600 jobs with a payroll of 53 million dollars.[3] Consumers who want to support their local producers and sustainable farming over big agribusiness and retailers should therefore aim to shop locally wherever possible. [1] Renton A., ‘British farmers forced to pay the cost of supermarket price wars’, guardian.co.uk, 2 July 2011. [2] Sustainable table, ‘Why buy local?’, January 2009. [3] Tozzi J., ‘To Beat Recession, Indies launch Buy-Local Push’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 February 2009.
Fresher produce

Buying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket fruit and vegetables are often picked 4-7 days before they make it on to the shelves, and so may be nearly two weeks old before they are actually eaten, by which time much of their goodness will have long departed.[1] To cope with these long delays, many fruits are picked in an unripe state, so that they do not start to rot on the supermarket shelves – meaning their full flavour has never developed out in the sun on the tree or plant. By buying locally consumers can ensure that they get the tastiest, healthiest food as it is often picked the afternoon before going to market or if going to stores can get there in much less time.[2] Local produce will also encourage people to vary their diet by trying new foods if they come from local producers, who can offer tastings and recipe advice. [1] Poulter, Sean, ‘Why frozen vegtables are fresher than fresh’, MailOnline, 5 March 2010. [2] CUESA, ‘Food Quality’, the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture, 23 September 200
Trade means lower costs

Buying only local produce means making a commitment to paying much more money for your weekly shop. 250 years ago, Adam Smith demonstrated that there is an economic law of comparative advantage. This states that each country or region should focus on producing those crops and manufactures to which it is best suited, exporting these and using the income to purchase things which other countries can produce more cheaply and efficiently. This way everyone prospers, gaining the most profit from their special areas of economic expertise, while spending less to buy those things in which others excel. Deciding to buy only local produce flies in the face of economic reality, because much of the food that can be produced nearby would be much cheaper if imported from another country with cheaper land and labour, a more suitable climate and greater economies of scale. The bottom line here is that shopping local can only ever be an indulgence of the rich – ordinary working families must follow the rules of comparative advantage and buy their food cheaply from supermarkets, which can seek out the cheapest and most efficient sources of each foodstuff. In Zimbabwe, for example, this means even the middle class mainly buys South African (neighbor) products. The local consumers explain that without much disposable income, the cheapest option is the best option.[1] [1] Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Local products too expensive: Consumers’, 23 August 2011.
Localism is Protectionism

Buying local produce acts as a form of protectionism (which is why farm lobbies are keen on it). As well as artificially increasing family food bills in developed countries, the cult of localism also hits farmers in the developing world by denying them an export market. Over the past decade or so countries like Kenya and Peru have begun to develop their way out of poverty by exploiting their comparative advantages in agriculture, while other countries such as Afghanistan agriculture is necessary to rebuild the economy after conflict.[1] Developing countries commercial farming operations provide fresh fruit and vegetables for rich consumers in developing countries. Farms growing crops like beans, broccoli, plums and cherries have provided good jobs for hundreds of thousands of poor people, and brought their countries valuable income and investment. We should not sacrifice this massive benefit to the pursuit of protectionist “localism”. [1] Irving S., ‘How fair trade can help tackle poverty and bring peace to conflict zones’, guardian.co.uk, 19 February 2010.
Greater consumer choice

Supermarkets thrive because they provide what consumers want, a wide choice of products at competitive prices.  We should be grateful for the advances of transport and economic globalisation, which have brought such a wide range of foods to our shops. Our grandparents ate largely local produce, and this gave them a very dull diet with a very limited choice of fruit and vegetables. They understood the importance of seasonal variation all right, but that meant they had little access to vitamins in the cold winter and spring months. Our diet today is much healthier and more varied as a result of globalisation, and we should not try to turn the clock back to the bad old days when only local produce was available. Even when there is no question of nutrition why should consumers not have the choice both of a British apple and a French apple? Many may prefer the taste of the French apple or it may be better for producing a certain type of chutney.