BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democracies are more likely to be economically successful

Liberal democracies are statistically substantially more likely to be economically successful than non-democracies. There have been several cases where nations have been divided, and the democratic side have succeeded economically whereas the non-democratic side have not had a comparable economic success or high levels of GDP. Examples of this include North and South Korea, a nation divided whereby South Korea has been an economic success story, whereas North Korea struggles even to provide enough food for its' citizens to be fully nourished. One of the differences between North and South Korea is indeed their economic systems, however the point here is that liberal democracies facilitate the change of governments which would presumably also enforce new economic systems that would overturn dire economic policies that keep it's citizens mired in poverty for decades. With regard to the argument that property rights are better protected by non-liberal democracies is simply incorrect: liberal democracies place emphasis on the rights of citizens and ALL liberal democracies are capitalist, therefore will be likely to have strong property rights. Autocracies and semi-autocracies are subject to less oversight and scrutiny from the media, opposition parties, and their citizens, and often do not have the same constitutional guarantees, making it easier to change laws such as those guaranteeing property rights. Thus the argument that other forms of government are better able to be economically successful because they are more likely to enforce property rights is incorrect.
Illiberal democracy

We are used to the idea that Democracy and liberalism are inseparable. However the world today provides many examples of democracies being used for authoritarian ends rather than liberal ends. Take for example Iran, undeniably a democracy, it has elections both for the executive and legislature (although the supreme leader and guardian council are undeniably the most powerful branch of government they could effectively be placed as the judiciary – which incidentally is not democratic in most ‘liberal democracies’) However most of us would not regard Iran as a particularly liberal regime or one that guarantees fundamental human rights and it is as often the elected elements of the political system that are to blame as it is the guardian council. Fareed Zakaria, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Foreign Affairs, (Nov. 1997)]] Democracy in most systems means rule of the majority – if that. This means that the majority may well deny freedoms to a minority. Moreover Britain votes once every four years for half of the Houses of Parliament this would theoretically be plenty of time for a party once in power to set about denying libertys rather than spreading them. This could be a major change as with the Wimar republic being democratically taken over by Hitler or it could be much more minor such as the British government’s erosion of liberties since 9/11 justifying it as part of the war on terror to be able to prevent peaceful protest and stop and search. [George Monbiot, 'A threat to democracy', The Guardian, Tuesday 3 August 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/03/terrorism.britainand911%5D%5D
it is development that leads to democracy

Development often leads to democracy, not the other way around. Most theories see the rise of middle classes as the spur that creates a democracy. Development leads to large numbers of the population getting richer, becoming better educated and informed and so become more likely to have political opinions on a range of issues from education to foreign policy, as well as being exposed to ideas about other forms of government. [John Lee, 'Putting Democracy in China on Hold', CIS Issue Analysis 95, http://www.cis.org.au/issue_analysis/IA95/ia95.html%5D%5D However even this link is getting weaker. The number of wealthy authoritarian countries is increasing and they are not always becoming democracies, and if they do become democracies it is not necessarily on a liberal model. Authoritarian regimes are increasingly showing that they can create the economic growth to become affluent and still evade the need for political reform. China is the most obvious example of a authoritatian regime that is growing increasingly wealthy, has a large middle class that is usually the group that demands political rights, any yet is not having to give up authority. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs, ‘Development and Democracy’, Foreign Affairs, ( Sep., 2005)]] Many commentators see a bargain between the Chinese middle classes and the Communist party, whereby the middle classes let the Communists stay in power in return for rapid economic growth. This has allowed the communist party to co-opt the educated members of society, those who would normally be most likely to be discontented at a lack of representation. The middle classes fear that democracy would mean that the peasents who work on the land would have the real say in government. In short like the British upper classes in the early 19th century they believe that the rural populace is not yet ready to participate in elections.[Qing Hua, 'Democracy in China, Not Anytime Soon', The Asian Economist, Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, http://www.theasianeconomist.com/democracy-in-china-not-anytime-soon/%5D%5D
Theory vs. Practice

Liberal democracies are often credited with having good records on human rights, responsibilities, leadership, moral decencies et al. However, it is not difficult to see that the United States and the UK (as two of the most prominent examples) are liberal democracies in theory, but not in practice. In the United States, the "Patriot Act" has made sure it has overturned most civil liberties for United States citizens, whilst in the UK the Terrorism Act of 2006 has achieved pretty much the same thing. These governments have aquired the ability to effectively throw out whatever human rights they no longer wish to comply with. Whilst we are still able to live with a considerable amount of freedom, liberal democracies tend not to be able to deliver the ability to use that freedom. Liberal democracies often suffer from having large wealth gaps and severe problems with financial control. In the United States, for example, five percent of its population controls forty-five percent of its wealth. In a liberal democracy, when you are poor, your ability to exercise your freedom is restricted, due to the fact that social mobility is generally uncommon and slow. Whereas if you are rich, your ability to stay rich is relatively easy. Under communist or socialist rule social mobility is the most important policy. To decrease the wealth gap and to ensure that everyone has a decent living are what count the most. Communism and Socialism do not imply the limitations of freedom. In fact, there is more of it (in theory), due to the power of social mobility and the philosophy that everyone should be able to make a decent living. However, in order for this to work in a Communist or Socialist society it is necessary for the government to follow through with its promises - that it will act for the good of the people and not for itself. So long as there is benign, compassionate, intelligent government in these systems then these systems are in many ways better than liberal democracies.
Democracies are the best way to guarantee people's fundamental human rights.

This depends whether you are talking about ‘liberal’ democracies as with the start of the text or just democracies as with the title of the argument and the debate. Liberalism is distinct from democracy, although most democracies have at the same time been ‘liberal’. There are two strands of liberalism economic and the conception of political liberty. Democracy is mainly about having free and fair elections whereas constitutional liberalism is the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.[Fareed Zakaria, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Foreign Affairs, (Nov. 1997)]] It does not matter if constitutional liberalism comes before or after democracy is established, the two are not necessarily simultanious[Charles Kupchan, 'Illiberal Illusions: Restoring Democracy's Good Name', Foreign Affairs, (May, 1998) http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/54023/charles-kupchan/illiberal-illusions-restoring-democracys-good-name%5D%5D
Democracies are the best way to guarantee people's fundamental human rights.

Liberal democracies are the only system of government that guarantee fundamental human rights such as the habeas corpus (right to a free and fair trial), freedom of speech, freedom of the media, and the right to vote, among others. Non-democracies, by their very nature, do not guarantee these fundamental human rights. These are rights that can and should be guaranteed by governments, and they are fundamental human rights that all individuals should have under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Being childfree is a lifestyle choice – and a logical one. The act of having children effectively e...

Having children is the most fulfilling and rewarding experience possible. There’s a reason that people become so distressed when they can’t have them – it’s because they complete us, explain to us who we are and why we are here. Parenthood is the fulfilment of our biological purpose. Many would argue that motherhood makes women's bodies more beautiful, not less, and medical research indicates that not having children (or having them late in life) substantially increases women's chances of developing some cancers.
Children are the most ungrateful people ever to come into our lives. Ambitions are limited, lives b...

Part of parenthood is patience through the perils of one’s child’s adolescence. Part of it is letting go. Undeniably that is painful. But it is worth it for the joy of having brought someone into this world and loving them. Ultimately, parents must let their children go as part of the process of the children growing up and having children of their own.
The world’s too full of weeping… why would anyone want to bring children into this world? It is a v...

There is so much still to be enjoyed. Doom-mongers always hark back to some golden day that never really existed, or ignore the great pleasures that can be enjoyed even despite the problems humanity faces. Having a child is always a statement of optimism and faith in the future, as well as a commitment to ensure that the future is better than the present.
The world population has exploded in the last two centuries, to the point at which it is irresponsib...

Population has risen, and indeed will continue to rise, because there is space and surplus provisions to provide for more people. Improving methods of production and distribution mean that even as the population rises, fewer people will go hungry. And in some countries, birth rates are down, not up – see point 3. Estimates of pollution inevitably exaggerate damage – those that produce them make a living from the ‘problem’ after all. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population – and that’s what most governments are trying to achieve.
Being childfree is a lifestyle choice – and a logical one. The act of having children effectively e...

Being childfree is a lifestyle choice – and a logical one. The act of having children effectively ends life being lived for oneself. Why would any person rationally live in order to aid another? Children limit our ambitions and aspirations, damage our careers, and take up our time. Women's bodies suffer from the stresses of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding. Couples have their social life ruined, and their conversation becomes limited to the doings of their offspring and the state of the local schools. Their sex lives also suffer terribly. The lives of plenty of people are fulfilling without having kids.
Children are the biggest expenditure most people ever undertake. Are the massive sacrifices needed ...

Children are the biggest expenditure most people ever undertake. Are the massive sacrifices needed to raise a child and to put it through school, and perhaps university really worth it? For women in particular, having children often leads to the end of their education or career aspirations. Even for women in cultures in which their security in later life really depends on having children, the benefits must be weighed against the dangers of childbirth which are significant.
Individuals have no moral imperatives beyond behaving properly towards those around them and keepin...

Individuals have no moral imperatives beyond behaving properly towards those around them and keeping society’s laws. Furthermore, the notion that parenthood is somehow a duty or the completion of one’s social existence has been the prime weapon in the repression of women throughout history. Overpopulation is the real crisis facing humanity and anyone determined not to contribute to this problem should be celebrated, not criticised.
Children are the most ungrateful people ever to come into our lives. Ambitions are limited, lives b...

Children are the most ungrateful people ever to come into our lives. Ambitions are limited, lives become smaller – and the reward is to have the person you have brought into the world and on whom you have spent your best 20 years spit in your eye and take off to live with people who snigger at you when you drop them off at the start of college term.
The world population has exploded in the last two centuries, to the point at which it is irresponsib...

The world population has exploded in the last two centuries, to the point at which it is irresponsible to add to its number. Apart from famine, urban squalor, disease and other crises of overpopulation, we have also damaged our planet’s environment immeasurably. Adding to the population will only worsen this situation: more consumers equal more pollution.
Only the Vatican officially rejects contraception, but in practice many Roman Catholics ignore papal...

Only the Vatican officially rejects contraception, but in practice many Roman Catholics ignore papal teachings on this and choose to avoid having children - and why shouldn't people have this choice in a matter of belief? While some cultures value children and oppose contraception, these views do not have full religious authority and are usually part of a social structure that oppresses women in other ways. Overall, those who would deny couples the choice of contraception are responsible for many of the problems of overpopulation, as well as for the unnecessary spread of sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS.
The UNSC passing a sanction is highly unlikely

As we have already outlined, the propostion has grossly underestimated the effects of the proposed sanctions, and have gone completely unconsidered on the side of the importing countries. The greatest importers of these goods are the US and the EU countries. The US imports meat[[http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Findings/Brazil.htm]] while the EU imports biofuel. So the countries in the UNSC, specially the US and France, would be highly unlikely to impose these sanction since this would have a direct effect on them due to shortages. It would be like punishing themselves. So, instead of wasting money on OTHER countries and HOPING that they will invest in R&D to reduce rainforest destruction, they are more likely to invest in production in their OWN country to reduce their dependence on rainforest goods or goods produced in rainforest land. This is not only much less expensive, but it also has the added benefit of reducing dependence on other countries.
Rainforests are global resources.

We the opposition agree that the rainforests are indeed the lungs of the earth and that these are global resources. Thus these sohuld be protected. But this should not be done without considering the consequences. Imposing sanction will give rise to many problems that can be avoided by following other more gradual methods. The proposition has highlighted that Brazil itself wants to stop deforestation. However, this does not mean that Brazil wants other countries to impose sanctions on it so that its economy is crippled. The way to move forward is to reduce the demand of such destructive products so that the producers gradually stop expansion of their industry into rainforests. This will obviously be not as sudden as the sanctions. This will also not be costly for the developed countries as they are not having to subsidize anyone.
Sanctions are better for the government themselves

Rainforests are valuable simply because of their existence. Their existence means 20% of the entire world oxygen production, sanctuaries for billions of flora and fauna, and countless more values. This contributes not only to the international society as a whole, but also to the nations where these rainforests are located in. However, the companies, by eradicating the rainforests, are disposing of the benefits that come along with the rainforests. Whatever benefits that the destruction of rainforests brings will be more than offset by the costs that the government will have to burden once rainforests are gone. For one, agriculture will greatly benefit once rainforests are protected. The environment and economy are not two separate factors; there exists a mutual link between the two. The brown cloud, for example, is an environmental disaster caused by airborne particles and pollutants. This effectively hinders the farming industry by blocking sunlight and weakening crops, thus rendering both the environment and the agriculture useless. The important fact is that these two factors go hand-in-hand, and that the destruction of rainforests affects other fields as well. Moreover, the status quo is that farmers do not have sustainable farming methods and therefore end up clearing rainforests to create land upon which they can farm on. However, Earth cannot create land forever; scientists predict that rainforests will be gone in 40 years at this pace. With this in mind, the need for a more efficient farming method rises. By preventing any further abuse of rainforests, farmers will be driven to find other alternatives that will enable them to continue farming without inflicting damage upon the environment. Finally, there will be diplomatic benefits that come with preserving rainforests as well. Using the rainforests as a method to develop is simply bad tactics in the sense that the countries that do so become the mavericks that go against the trend of the rest of the world, which is to conserve the environment. On the other hand, preserving the rainforests enables the government to gain the upper hand in morality in the international society. By showing that it cares for the environment so much that it is even willing to forfeit some of the benefits that may derive from the exploitation of the rainforests, the government sends a clear message and thus wins the consent of other nations. Reference: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/6947/ http://www.nature.org/rainforests/explore/facts.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm
[Response to rebuttal] Rainforests are global resources.

By stating that “the way to move forward is to reduce the demand of such destructive products,” the Opposition has admitted that suppressing the demand for bulldozing the rainforest is a crucial factor in solving this crisis. They have taken, however, the rather unrealistic stance of hoping for a “gradual change” in demand. We must point out here that in the first place, their proposal is no different from the status quo, which has been a complete failure so far. Also, the possibly improved, gradually incentivizing method is not mutually exclusive from what we are proposing today. On Brazil’s efforts in preventing deforestation, we would like to clarify that although Brazil is aware of the environmental risks, they are not willing to take voluntary actions in stopping further destruction. Just recently, for example, President Lula de Silva has passed a bill that grants titles to illegal rainforest squatters. NGOs have accused de Silva of further accelerating the rainforest destruction, but the only response to that was complete denial without any elaboration.1 We must note that this is what members of the UNSC and other nations face even after constantly lobbying and promising financial support for the Brazilian government. Then, can we still say that we should just sit back and wait for gradual change through political discourses? Proposition figures that the time for change is already overdue and that the there is a dire need to take real action – something that will bring effective change. Reference: 1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/26/amazon-land-rights-brazil
When the buying stops the killing can too

The opposition concedes two points. First, rainforests are important and have to be protected. Second, rainforests are destroyed because of irresponsible consumption. Thus the only issue is how we would reduce this irresponsible consumption. There is a reason why the EU does not import US produced biofuel; biofuel based on corn-ethanol has been an immense failure. The demand for corn ethanol has driven up food prices all around the world and has been proven to be extremely inefficient.(1) We do not want the biofuel industry to regress and move back to the states. The opposition claim that doing this gradually is a good idea. Tectonic plates move gradually. Gradual change is never enough. Up until now the world has been waiting for gradual change. But time and history has proved that with no regulation, corporate greed knows no limits. Gradual change will not happen voluntarily. Although the Brazilian government has been asking for external aid, it still allows destruction of the Amazon as stated in our response to the Opposition’s second rebuttal. We only have 20 more years to enjoy rainforests if this persists. Our children will likely live in a world without rainforests once they reach their teens. We say that gradual change is not good enough. This is an urgent issue that has to be addressed now. Reference: (1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89545855