BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Having children is the essence of existence for every creature

The most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.  * Collins English Dictionary, 2003, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life
Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents

Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong. *Bayaz, 2009, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169018.php **Newsweek, 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html
The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.

Not only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes.
Having children is our duty and responsibility

People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society.
Having children guarantees support for parents

There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary.
Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents

Parenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says "Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood."** *Kingston, 2009, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/3/ **Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.htm
Having children is extraordinarily expensive

For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc. *Boy Scouts of America, 2011, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/media/ES_Finances.pdf
Not having children is environmentally friendly

The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment. * Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006, http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=106
Radio is yesterday’s technology.

Proposition is right to point out the role that has traditionally been filled by relatively small scale radio – providing a relatively cheap method of getting in touch with anybody willing to listen. However, that has, effectively, been rendered redundant by Internet technology. The power of Facebook, Youtube and other sites to disseminate ideas and information as well as phone texting has not only matched that role but surpassed it. With no capital costs in an era of internet cafes and omnipresent cell phones, the free exchange of information through digital and portable technology has met exactly the needs and concerns Proposition highlights.[i] Suggesting that community radio will somehow supplement or enhance that process it taking a step backwards; support for the relatively monolithic radio model runs all of the risks of empowering extremists already mentioned without even equalling the benefits of texting and social media[ii]. [i] Helling, Alex, ‘This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities’, freespeechdebate.idebate.org, 18 May 2012. [ii] Hood, Michael, NPR CEO: Internet will replace broadcast radio in 5-10 years. Blatherwatch, 3 June 2010.
Community radio is just a platform, there is nothing innately democratic about it.

To associate a medium with a particular virtue is missing the point. Radio has been used for atrocity and tyranny (Rwanda would be an obvious example) just as much as the promotion and development of democracy. Equally the suggestion that community radio has a more significant role to play in this regard as opposed to, say, the BBC world Service, is ignoring the facts. Particular media cannot be said to support democratic renewal any more than particular languages can. Equally, the revolutions of 1989 demonstrated the reality that taking control of the national radio station is, in some situations, more important than seizing the Presidential Palace. Neither the ‘community’ element nor the ‘radio’ aspect are innately democratic. Different media have, undeniably, produced different types of social change – but they all have possibilities for democratic progress[i]. [i]  Sedra, Mark, Revolution 2.0: democracy promotion in the age of social media. The Globe and Mail. 2 February 2011.
Community radio gives voices to the people rather than imposing those of the powerful.

Community radio can indeed do the many wondrous things that Prop seems to trust it to do. It can also do more or less anything else. If proposition is trying to demonstrate that community radio, per se, supports democracy, then it needs to demonstrate how it does so more than, say, libraries or coffee shop discussion groups. It may be a public service that is responsible to the community but that does not mean that it cannot be infiltrated and controlled by the state like any other service.
Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible.

While it is inexpensive to set up and run this is relatively expensive for the community compared to commercial radio, which is free to the user and perfectly capable of promoting the ideas of the free market which have had a proven benefit to democratic structures the world over. In addition to which, realistically, democratic participation will end up involving larger national bodies such as trades union, political parties and civil society organisations who need to operate on a nationwide basis but also have larger budgets.
Community radio just gives a megaphone to extremists.

Opposition is letting state-sanctioned media off the hook fantastically lightly. Just staying within the Arab world, the number of broadcasters that sully the name of journalism by acting as apologists for butchers and torturers is astonishing. One example of this – selected utterly at random from an embarrassment of riches – was the state media’s declaration of historic victories by both Milosovich and Saddam Hussein after both had received drubbings from Western allies[i]. There is at least a chance that a broadcaster won’t be just a voice for the state if it isn’t funded or run by the president or one of his closest allies or appointees. [i]  Ash, Timothy Garton, Facts are Subversive. The Strange Toppling of Slobodan Milošević. Atlantic Books. 2009. This account is one of many, many others that highlight the importance of the control of media centres in democratic shift. However, it highlights the Serbian state media’s proclamation of Milošević’s ‘victories’ against the west but also the impact of this when, fallowing the dictator’s fall, it was the seizure of the state TV and Radio stations, rather than parliament or the presidential palace, that denoted victory.
Community radio gives voices to the people rather than imposing those of the powerful.

The events of the Arab Spring (and previous events such as the revolutions of 1989) have shown that effective means of communicating are vital. In a country where people have heard only one perspective, anything that can break the monopoly is to be welcomed. As Orwell put it, ‎'In an age of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a subversive act'. Community radio can both encourage an initial outpouring of democracy and, just as importantly, ensure that a diversity of opinions means that one autocratic regime is not just replaced by another. In almost all other forms of mass communication, genuinely democratic voices are easily swamped by those with either the power or the money to drown out the competition[i]. As the focus of community radio is public service, rather than profit, responsible to – and frequently produced by – their listener base there do not have commercial advertisers’ aversion to upsetting authority – either political or cultural. As a result they are free to eschew the bland lowest common denominator approach that is so typical of commercial radio. [i] AMARC (World Association of Community Radio) booklet. What is Community Radio? 1998.
Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible.

Community radio relies on the power of its ideas and the thirst for those ideas among its audience. It accepts the notion that it is the exchange of information and views, freely given and received, that is more important than the ideas themselves. It doesn’t require massive budgets and radio waves can be received on equipment that costs pennies; more importantly it can be shared. For all of its pretensions of accessibility the devices used to access the Internet tend to be expensive and they also tend not to be shared – unlike radios[i]. To give some context to this, even paying Western prices, a small radio station can be started for as little as $10,000 with monthly costs of $1,000[ii]. Some of that, of course, relates to government issued licences, clearly this does not apply if the station is planning to be ignored by the authorities. These costs can be further reduced when the founders have a pre-existing knowledge of radio engineering or work with a partner organisation such as the BBC World Service or the various NGOs who specialise in the field[iii]. [i] Plunkett, John, Community radio: A rare success story. The Guardian. 9 March 2009. [ii] Prometheus Radio Project. [iii] Wikipedia. Community Radio.
Community radio evens the playing field against state and corporate broadcasters.

Autocracy has, at its root, the premise that only one perspective, or group of perspectives is legitimate. Certain assumptions are unquestionable, certain rules inviolable and, more often than not, certain voices unchallengeable. It’s all too easy for that state of affairs to be normalised. Community radio offers another voice. More to the point it offers many. As well as the value of the messages themselves, the very fact that they are there and broadcast is a powerful statement against autocratic assumptions. The process of establishing and running a community radio station is, in and of itself, a powerful fillip for community cohesion. Giving voices to communities supports them as groups in their own right; cohesive, engaged and worthy of respect. In doing so it can provide a focus which increases the homogeneity of those communities without requiring the approval of a central structure of control[i]. In addition to well known examples such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radio stations across the Middle East And, especially, Africa have been key movers in the shift to democracy[ii]. [i]  Siddharth. Riding the radio wave; Community radio in South-East Asia. Culture360.org 18 February 2010. [ii] Buckley, Steve, President, World Association for Community Radio Broadcasters. Community Broadcasting: good practice in policy, law and regulation. UNESCO. 2008.
Community radio just gives a megaphone to extremists.

Experience suggests that the airwaves, unregulated, tend to attract pedagogues seeking followers more than democrats seeking the views of others. Particularly in areas of high sectarian divisions, technologies that propagate the views of every mullah with a mic are unlikely to help democracy in the middle east. Indeed the experience with the nearest equivalent in the US, talk radio, shows how fantastically divisive it can be.[i] Community radio in areas that do not have a history of plurality and diversity of opinion would be likely to see the spread of radio stations pandering to the specific views of every shard and splinter of opinion, reinforcing that particular set of beliefs while ignoring all others – it is difficult to imagine a more toxic – and less democratic – option to encourage in the Arab world[ii]. The difficulty, as shown in the reference given in the previous paragraph, is that exactly the same ease of access applies to fanatics as to democrats – who may, frequently, be the same people. In the instance of Rwanda, extremists inciting violence (almost entirely Hutus) had acquired small scale radio equipment. The government couldn’t afford the jamming equipment (the US jamming flights would cost $8500 per hour) and sought assistance from the Americans. The UN objected as such actions were clearly sectarian. However, the wide use of Radio – initially funded by the West – which, in part at least had lead to the genocide then left a toxic legacy of fanatics dominating the airwaves, those involved were eventually convicted in 2003.[iii] [i] Noriega, Chin A, and Iribarren, Francisco Javier, ‘Quantifying Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio’, Chicano Studies Research Center, November 2011. [ii] Wisner, Frank G., ‘Memorandum for deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, national security council, Department of Defense, 5 May 1994. [iii] Smith, Russell, ‘The impact of hate media in Rwanda’, BBC News, 3 December 2003. Dale, Alexander C., ‘Countering hate messages that lead to violence: The United Nations’s chapter VII authority to use radio jamming to halt incendiary broadcasts’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol 11. 2001.
The internet can be used to quash democratic movements.

Governments cannot always get away with the targeting of internet dissidents. Bloggers are often famous and followed intently by many people. If a popular blogger all of a sudden disappears it is more likely to generate increased support for the blogger and the cause than lead supporters to defect to the government1. Further, the government cannot arrest everyone, and the internet provides a tool for social movements to be poly-centric2—they have many leaders and anyone can step in. 1. Digital Activism Decoded: New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution. 2. Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies.
The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.

Media can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency. 1. Reporters Without Borders, "Press Freedom Index 2010" 2010, 2. Economy, Elizabeth and Mondschein, Jared, "China: The New Virtual Political System", Council on Foreign Relations 2011 3. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4cdb4c98-37b1-11e0-b91a-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=...">Richard Waters. "Web firms aim to benefit from role in uprising" Financial Times, February 13, 2011, improve this
Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.

The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries. What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/. 1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011 2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011