BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The British Government is still committed to cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

Although the Heathrow airport expansion may appear to be favourising the economy over the environment, it is still apparent that the British Government aims to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050. From this fact, the government is not sacrificing the economy for the environment as it is ensuring the environment improves too in the long run. The transport secretary, Hoon has declared that these changes at Heathrow would allow Britain to lead the fight against climate change while still adding airport capacity (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_JsY45seGLULqfvYyu-b-7e3dCgD95NT1F00). In this sense, the British Government is trying to assure a balance between the improvements in the economy and the environment.
The expanded airport will meet all European noise and carbon-emission regulations.

It has been confirmed that noise pollution limits will be met at Heathrow Airport, despite the new runway. Only environmentally advanced planes will be allowed the use the new runway and the government will only allow 125,000 more flights per year, not the 220,000 that had originally been sought. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_JsY45seGLULqfvYyu-b-7e3dCgD95NT1F00). This is in an attempt to sustain the environment whilst helping the economic situation of the country.
The Government plans to build new, environmentally-friendly rail links.

To make up for the fact that it will be damaging the environment through its Heathrow expansion, the British government is considering the possibility of spending billions of pounds on new high speed railways to and from Heathrow and a new high speed rail link between London and Northern England. Large parts of Britain's rail network would be electrified so quieter and cleaner trains could be used. So, in order to justify its harm to the environment through Heathrow Airport, the government will improve the environment in other ways, thus confirming that it has not sacrificed the environment for the economy.
The British Government wants to sustain competition between Britain and its competitors no matter what.

The environment is not the only sacrifice the government has made to ensure the protection of its economy. The building of a third runway would require the razing of an entire village, Sipson and the demolition of 700 homes. This would leave the residents homeless or struggling to find new homes. As a consequence, whilst the environment is considerably affected by this new development, the government is equally sacrificing the homes of hundreds of British residents.
The British Government is still committed to cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

Even the transport secretary Geoff Hoon himself has admitted that "this gives us the toughest climate change regime of aviation of any country in the world". (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_JsY45seGLULqfvYyu-b-7e3dCgD95NT1F00). Subsequently, it is likely the government is still sacrificing the environment for the economy as by giving the go-ahead to the development at Heathrow, it is giving itself a major and unlikely challenge with regards the climate change.
The British Government wants to sustain competition between Britain and its competitors no matter what.

The British Government has given the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow Airport in the fear that without this expansion, Britain would be less competitive at a time when it is facing many economic challenges. Geoff Goon, the transportation secretary, has said that without the third runway, Heathrow would lose business to airports with more runways such as Paris, Madrid and Amsterdam (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/world/europe/16heathrow.html?_r=1&hp). Therefore, in order to struggle against its economic situation, the British Government has sacrificed whatever it must in an attempt to savage its economy. In this case its sacrifice is the environment.
Nature Suggests That Same Sex Marriage is Illogical

Humans lost the right to claim that ‘natural’ things are best when we started playing God ourselves. Contraception and IVF both go against the natural reproductive processes (either by limiting or enhancing them) but we accept that their benefits to the happiness of the individuals involved far outweigh any outdated concepts of natural law. The same applies to same sex marriage. Although these relationships will not produce offspring they will significantly improve the quality of life of the individuals involved. The state should be promoting the wellbeing of its citizens wherever possible and this is an example of where it could do so. Also, allowing same sex marriage will not lead to the death of the species as no one reproduces any more. It will not make more people gay any more than not allowing same sex marriage makes more people straight.
EU Should Push Forward Equality for All of its Citizens Regardless of Sexuality

The EU was originally establ;ished for trade and commerce reasons, and withing this remit, yes all it's citizens should be equal. However, there has never been any requirement that the member states of the EU should share similar cultural religious or moral values or boundaries. If some states are more progressive than others in terms of gay rights this is not an issue for the EU to resolve, but it is for those nations to work on individually. I think being in the same sex goes against God's will. Even though we are given our own body by God doesn't mean we have to sin intentionally.
Slippery Slope

The reason we don't allow the types of marriage stated is because of issues of consent. A child cannot consent to be married, in cases of incest there is huge potential for grooming to have occurred before the age of consent and there is also a large amount of coercion involved in polygamy. In contrast same sex marriage would be between consenting adults and is therefore not analogous to the "non-standard" marriages mentioned. Rather than losing the moral high ground we would strengthen it as we would gain clear criteria (adult and consenting) for what makes a relationship acceptable.
Who says who can marry and who can't

It is unlawfull,unnatural and offensive to straights. We were born to make wonderfull love via vagina and penis to create children. Thats how we were made and it is lovely.There is no getting away from it, female and male. Anything else is perverse weak willed and against the way our wonderfull bodies were created. It is also notable that since the unfortunate acceptance of gays paedophilia has shot up .fact. I am not a krank, just someone who has been around for quite awhile with eyes wide open.
Nature Suggests That Same Sex Marriage is Illogical

For our society to survive, we need to procreate; two men cannot do this, nor can two women: human life on earth can only be sustained if society continues to have relationships with a member of the other sex (i.e. one man and one women). Nature suggests that monogamous, heterosexual pairings are the best arrangements in which to rear children, or otherwise nature would permit same-sex couples to procreate. Opposite-sex marriage recognizes and conforms to this natural teleology of the body, while same-sex marriage does not. Conforming to the teleology of the body promotes happiness, while opposing it results in suffering. We should promote that which promotes happiness and oppose that which promotes suffering 1. 1 Andrew Sullivan, ed., Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con (New York: Vintage), 1997]]
EU Should Push Forward Equality for All of its Citizens Regardless of Sexuality

The EU works for equality within society in Europe: what more brings about equality and is a stepping stone to lessen discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. The EU places individual rights at the heart of its mission by demanding that all member states sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a legal declaration enshrining in law everyone’s right to life, freedom and self-determination. Although the ECHR does not mention same sex relationships explicitly, it does prohibit discrimination by institutions and the list of categories it gives is non-exhaustive. It is time the EU accepts that by not giving homosexual couples equal rights it denies them the right to self-determination and family life that all other EU citizens enjoy. The EU has an obligation to ensure that its member states respect the rights of all their citizens. Introducing the civic register was a humanitarian step forward to give gay or lesbian couples the facility to protect their partners in cases of bereavement , how could anyone disagree we in Liverpool did so before national legislation Cllr Steve Radford Liberal Party
Slippery Slope

The same types of considerations that oppose same-sex marriage are the considerations that oppose polygamous, adult/child, incestuous, and other non-standard marriages. If we were to allow same-sex marriage, we would have no principled grounds upon which to oppose these other forms of marriage. Polygamous, adult/child, incestuous, and other non-standard marriages are bad and should not be allowed. Therefore, we should oppose same-sex marriage as a way of keeping the door shut to these other forms of marriage [[http://carnap.umd.edu/queer/marriagenotes.htm]].
Marriage provides important benefits to individuals AND society

Marriage provides important benefits to individuals, including emotional stability and economic security.Marriage also benefits society by encouraging deep commitments between individuals, promoting the healthy rearing of children, and preserving the bonds among individuals and communities that maintain social stability (and enable the individual pursuit of happiness). (We should promote that which benefits individuals and society.) Therefore, we should promote marriage. Gays and lesbians are unsuited for opposite-sex marriage, but there is no prima facie reason why gays and lesbians could not receive the same benefits from same-sex marriage that straights receive from opposite-sex marriage. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would aid society by encouraging them to live more stable, mainstream lives. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would promote the institution of marriage by making marriage the societal ideal for all citizens. Therefore, we should allow and promote same-sex marriage. [[Andrew Sullivan, ed., Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con (New York: Vintage), 1997, pp.146-154]].
Who says who can marry and who can't

By claiming homosexuals do not have the right to marry is equivalent to saying you cant marry someone because of your race, colour, religion, or nationality. It's wrong, and NO one has the right to revoke an individuals happiness from them. By revoking the right of happiness you are taking away a persons right to "freedom of expression", thus making it unlawful under EU law. Everyone has the right to express themselves and that includes celebrating ones love for one another through marriage.
Tradition

Why should tradition be a stumbling block to progress? It used to be a tradition that only white middle class males could vote because people thought that woman, working class people or black people voting would lead to an erosion of society. The concept of a strong and loving family is surely more important than a bond between a man and a woman. Same sex couples are just as able to form loving families than a mixed sex couple therefore some vague notion of 'tradition' should be no barrier to a couples happiness.
Gay people should have the same human rights as Heterosexuals

The fact that the rights are subject to others' freedom to pursue thiers means that heterosexual marriage cannot be argued a human right. Human rights serve to protect humanity as a whole through the protection of the individual, and if any individual or group threatens this, his right to do so should not be protected. Marriage is a right because it is thought that, ultimately it provides a stable way of producing children and furthering the species. This does not apply to same sex coules as they are unable to reproduce within this relationship.
Homosexuals would Change the Institution of Marriage for the Better

This argument is not backed up by substancial evidence and is mostly based upon opinion. Why is traditional heterosexual marriage an 'opressive social institution'? Eve if it started that way originally, where young girls were sold into families as part of a bartering sytem for means of reproduction, modernity has changed the 'institution by such a degree that the archaic version is no longer recognisable. House husbands are commonplace, as are two working parents, so where is the 'oppression'? Where is the housebound spouse? Also,the statement homosexuals are 'naturally more liberal' is a gross generalisation - unless we define liberal as singularly pro-gay there is no reason why your sexuality should affect your views on, say, childcare or abortion. Your sexual orientation is hardly likely to make you more pro life (for example) than anyone else.
It Would Cause controversy in religious countries such as Ireland and Italy

Countries which have strong church-going populations such as Ireland, Italy and Poland would be so opposed to this legislation they might even pull out of the EU. Although homophobia is wrong and homosexuals should have the same legal recognition when becoming committed (marriage/legal union) to one another, this should not be forced upon states leaders whose populaces will clearly strongly oppose it. Abortion is not even legal in Ireland because of their strong religious beliefs, and to force this issue on the people has the potential to lead to a backlash among these countries that would be worse, rather than better for gay rights in the short term. In any event, Ireland would simply have a referendum and vote no for the third time, which would cause a watering down of legislation to the point where there would be no point in having it. Forcing this issue on the population would not be worth the hassle and would essentially be rendered a waste of time while also getting individuals and populations angry at the EU - something it clearly does not need given its image as an undemocratic, unaccountable supernational union.
Tradition

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman: why should this change now? The longstanding traditions of society have evolved over many years and represent the collective wisdom of many generations. These traditions have been fairly successful in promoting progress and social order. Modern changes to these traditions are risky and often have disastrous societal results. Therefore, we should support the longstanding traditions of our society. One longstanding tradition of our society is the limitation of marriage to one man and one woman. Allowing same-sex marriage would drastically harm or change traditional marriage, leading to unknown but probably harmful consequences for social stability. Therefore, we should support tradition by promoting traditional marriage and opposing same-sex marriage [[http://carnap.umd.edu/queer/marriagenotes.htm]].
Marriage is an Oppressive Institution

Marriage oppresses those within it, and harms married couple's children; Gay rights movements have for decades promised a change from the oppressive socio-sexual norms, structures and traditions. Thus by gay men or women petitioning to be allowed into this institution actually betrays the entire ethos of the gay liberation movement by ensuring their own oppression. For this reason, homosexual individuals should not petition for the 'right' to be oppressed.
Homosexuals would Change the Institution of Marriage for the Better

Marriage is an oppressive social institution which damages those within it and harms the children whose parents are married. Marriage, however, is also an institution which is continually changing with society's changes. If homosexuals were able to marry, their marriages would be more akin to gay and lesbian relationships in their current form than an oppressive traditional marriage. By allowing more homosexuals (who are naturally more liberal) to marry, they might be able to change social attitudes and practices towards, and within the institution, strengthening it and making it healthier both for society and those who are married. For this reason, we should grant homosexuals as well as heterosexuals the right to marry in order to change society for the better.
Unitarians support equality

The Unitarian church in the UK and overseas supports the principle of equality and is calling for an end to this discrimination. However, I think there are important things to consider about marriage: 1. Marriage should be a private matter anyway. It is nobody's business but my own whether I am married or to whom (and I would definitely never tell my employer my marital status, unlike many idiotic women who expect to be employed under their husbands' names). Private lives should be kept private; 2. The main traditional reasons for getting married are not appropriate arguments for gay couples. Marriage is traditionally seen as a means of retaining or transferring property between families and as a means of securing the birth of heirs to family fortunes. This is not an argument against gay marriage but it is a reason to consider the meaning of marriage in the first place. If gay marriage brings about change to the way in which men treat their wives as their property and fail to ensure that they pay their way (resulting in women being effectively useless to the economy if divorced), then it will be a good thing. We must, however, ensure that what remains of the legal concept of "spousal privilege" and regarding a spouse as "next of kin" are abolished (your next of kin should be your nearest relative on your mother's side) and that married women are banned from using their husbands' names as is the law in Italy and Quebec. We also need to ensure that both partners have a legal requirement to support themselves financially until they reach State retirement age and that all benefits, taxes and pensions are disagregated.
Act one, scene five.

Lady Duncan's actions may give impetus to Macbeth but it is ultimately the three witches prediction of him becoming King of Scotland that ignites the spark within him to kill King Duncan. Also Macbeth kills Duncan without any further discussion with Lady Macbeth. He is the one who murders the king not the Lady nor the Witches. The blame rests with the murderer not all the factors that pushed him to do it. Macbeth is spineless in the play; he'd been planning to kill the king for such a long time; including his wife in his plans; and she is loyal she doesn't reveal the plot to anyone. And then in the last minute he decides to weasel out. But not really all he needs is for his wife to call him a wuss for him to be back in the game. Also Shakespeare always blames 'ambition' for his villain's/central-character's flaws not their wives.
Act one, scene five.

MACBETH My dearest love, Duncan comes here to-night. LADY MACBETH And when goes hence? MACBETH To-morrow, as he purposes. LADY MACBETH O, never Shall sun that morrow see! Your face, my thane, is as a book where men May read strange matters. To beguile the time, Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower, But be the serpent under't. He that's coming Must be provided for: and you shall put This night's great business into my dispatch; Which shall to all our nights and days to come Give solely sovereign sway and masterdom. In scene 7 of Act I, Macbeth in a soliloquy mentions that Duncan has been gracious and a kind king and that he has no reason to murder Duncan except for his 'over riding ambition'. At this point, Macbeth has decided that he shall not commit the murder. When he informs his wife of his decision, she pokes at his manliness and concludes that he is not worthy of being called a man. Questions raised on his character deeply hurt his ego. After Macbeth hears the plan that she has devised for committing the horrendous deed, he is immensely pleased with her and cannot find any loophole in the plan. Hence, after some 'whetting' from Lady Macbeth, he again vows to kill Duncan and succeeds in doing so.
Macbeth,lady Macbeth and the three witches are all blamed for the murder and banquo is depicted as a sort of angel

To claim any one person was given the entire blame in the play is a bit wrong. However, the play itself is horrifically historically inaccurate thus being a bit wrong could be a bit okay. He was propelled by his greed,ambition and so forth; Macbeth acknowledges this in himself. giving him the final nudge/blow is hardly taking responsibility for everything. In the Bard's Macbeth: If there were no witches Macbeth wouldn't have plotted to kill sweet King Duncan no matter what lady Macbeth would say/do. In reality: Banquo and Macbeth killed Duncan and there were no witches nor was lady Macbeth even included in the plan.
MacBeth would be charged with murder.

Undoubtedly with the evidence MacBeth would be charged with murder had he committed it today. There are few mitigating circumstances, it cant really be said to be manslaughter. It is MacBeth with the knife, he is the one who did it so he is the one who should be charged. Lady MacBeth may be an accessory and may be charged with other things such as plotting to kill but would probably not be charged with the murder itself.
Summary

The opposition is miffed at the shallow and vague approach adopted by the proposition throughout the course of the debate. The proposition should understand that it is always better to fight a visible object than an invisible ghost. The proposition has just stated that granting the rights will bring social stability and keep the foreign workers "happy". The burden of proof on the proposition was to prove the following points which are central to the basic theme of the debate, yet through the entire length of the debate the proposition has not dealt with them significantly and thus have failed to hit upon the core issues. The issues left unattended by the proposition are: (a) The need for granting such voting rights? (b) How would suffrage bring stability in the absence of security? (c) How local elections do not have an impact on the national political scene? (d) Why will the natives welcome such a move and not lead a civil strife? (e) Why such a measure will not lead to encouraging illegal immigration? (f) How is voting by foreign workers part of the basic human right? (g) What is the rationale of deliberating on "community rights" without defining the same? The opposition maintains its arguments and contends there would be no use of granting voting rights to the foreigners if the after-effects such as civil strife are overlooked. Further, stability can never be maintained in the absence of security. And if the basic security is not provided to the foreign workers it would be absurd to think that these foreign workers would want to live in the country just because they can vote. No foreigner would fancy the prospect of being abused while standing to cast the ballot. The foreign workers migrate for reaping the profits because the same is not available to them in their own country. Hence they will only bother about the money and the basic security levels. For the simple reason that foreigners do not identify with the soul and culture of the the country, they do not deserve an equal footing with the natives on the point of voting rights. "The granting of such rights to the foreign workers will devalue and dilute the institution of citizenship." The sanctity of suffrage, which is the exclusive domain of the citizens, should be maintained and upheld.