BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a benefit to students of all backgrounds from a policy of affirmative action in university ...

It is wishful thinking to believe that this policy will overcome such embedded social problems as youth crime and truancy – this policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential.
The purpose and strength of The United Nations is that it constrains countries within a multilateral...

The purpose and strength of The United Nations is that it constrains countries within a multilateral system. This limits states' freedom of action to do whatever they wish, but it also protects sovereignty by insisting that states can act as they wish providing they do not threaten others; they are constrained only by agreements they freely make. Over time this has built confidence and understanding between the great powers, and helped keep global peace for nearly sixty years. Unilateral action undermines these principles, risking dangerous competition between the great powers, and encouraging outside intervention in the affairs of the smaller states.
Multilateralism guarantees the support of the international community. This makes international perc...

This need only be a concern for weak countries. Those countries that are strong enough to act alone do not need to worry about nebulous and unreliable ‘goodwill.’ Moreover, if the action is taken in the name of universal principles, like “freedom” and “justice” then people in other countries will in time come to see the error of their ways in opposing the action in the first place. If a state has the strength to act alone, and is convinced of the righteousness of its cause, it should not hesitate to act.
Unilateralism is destabilising; if a country fights wars solely on a domestic whim, unconstrained by...

Unilateralism does not entail an absence of consultation and discussion with allies and other interested states. It merely reserves the right, when discussion and consultation has not secured international support, to take action alone. Some acts, like waging a war to defend one’s own nation or free another from oppression, are too important to be discarded just because no other country is willing to share the burden.
Even if successful military action could be conducted unilaterally, it is likely that the problems o...

Military action can bring great benefits to states. Having been freed from dictatorship, people can freely contribute to their country’s economy and bring prosperity for themselves and their families. Many such countries have natural resources which are attractive to companies from any state, thus many states could have a direct financial interest in supporting post-war reconstruction even when they did not support the original war. And in cases with no such benefits, simple humanitarian spirit should compel these states to aid reconstruction. Ultimately, unilateralists should be prepared to extend their unilateralism to reconstruction as well as war.
Multilateralism guarantees a coalition of wisdom and interests. This ensures a balanced understandin...

Too much talk can impede action. Too many points of view can cloud the issue. Whilst cooperation with other countries should be pursued as far as possible, no concessions can be offered that compromise key objectives, and unlimited time for negotiation cannot be afforded. One should not let threats get bigger and more unmanageable whilst one forlornly tries to form a coalition of the willing; when necessary, one simply must be prepared to act alone.
Many international problems cannot be addressed by one state acting alone, no matter how powerful it...

Multilateral bodies only move as quickly as their least constructive members will allow. Worse, the consensus they reach may in fact be wrong or unrealistic, providing no real solution and creating other problems in the long term. Sometimes unilateral action by one state can provide leadership, behind which other, like-minded states can gather. Even if different states adopt different approaches, this policy competition can be productive, showing which ideas are most deserving of wider adoption.
The purpose and strength of The United Nations is that it constrains countries within a multilateral...

Multilateralism undermines sovereignty by limiting the freedom of action of governments, and so can deny a people the rights of democratic decision and self-determination. Most importantly, in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, a nation and its leaders must have the right to define what constitutes a threat, and what form self-defence should take, without reference to other nations. If a government has an electoral mandate for action, then it should be able to do as it wishes, without allowing other states a veto over its decisions. This is particularly true when so many multilateral organisations give equal voting weight and even veto powers to undemocratic nations.
Multilateralism guarantees the support of the international community. This makes international perc...

Multilateralism guarantees the support of the international community. This makes international perceptions of action much more favourable. The increased good-will makes the present action easier, and could well spill over into future benefits in other areas. If a state proves itself to be a team player, willing to compromise to accommodate other states, then these other states will be prepared to compromise to suit that state in the future.
Unilateralism is destabilising; if a country fights wars solely on a domestic whim, unconstrained by...

Unilateralism is destabilising; if a country fights wars solely on a domestic whim, unconstrained by consultation or discussion with allies, it is likely to act disproportionately, high-handedly and counter-productively. It is also a terrible precedent to set for other states to follow: international relations could deteriorate if norms of cooperation are not nurtured. Chaos and anarchy would be the result if states decided to act alone.
Many international problems cannot be addressed by one state acting alone, no matter how powerful it...

Many international problems cannot be addressed by one state acting alone, no matter how powerful it is. Problems such as global warming and pollution, poverty and malnutrition, disease epidemics and barriers to trade require multilateral solutions. Unless countries act together for their mutual benefit in these areas no progress will be possible, but multilateral cooperation cannot be restricted to these 'soft' areas of policy. If countries act unilaterally on other issues, then all their dealings will be characterised by suspicion and hostility, and progress will halt.
We must conserve the earth

Yes, conservation is important, but livestock alone are not causing species extinction. The species listed opposite have been driven clost to extinction through human destruction of their habitat; but for living space, crops and natural resources like wood as well as grazing space for livestock. Hunting has also been an important factor for some species; but for sport, not food. If everyone switched to a vegan diet we would only start using more land for crop production for human consumption; that won't bring these species back.
Prevent Global Warming

Reducing the demand for meat and dairy products is an effective method for tackling climate change. The rearing of cattle and other animals gives huge carbon emissions and is the driving force for virtually every major category of environmental destruction; deforestation, soil erosion, water scarcity, water and air pollution, and biodiversity loss. The production of meat and dairy itself is responsible for almost a fifth of global greenhouse emissions, and as meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century, it is only going to be more destructive.
Our bodies were not designed for a vegan diet

Humans evolved as meat eaters; we need essential nutrients such as proteins and iron to be healthy. It is true that these can be obtained from vegetable sources, but not as efficiently, and a vegan diet can easily lead to deficiencies without careful management. Currently the 'Western diet' does contain too many animal products, especially fats, and we would all benefit from replacing some of these with vegetable based foodstuffs. But we should be looking to consume meat in moderation, not rule it out entirely. Eating fewer animal products would solve a lot of the problems highlighted by this debate; but eradicating it from our diets entirely could cause health problems and is simply not necessary.
A Vegan diet would not be practical in most parts of the world

In the West a Vegan diet is fairly easy to follow if you have motivation, but in some parts of the world this is just not feasible. For example Inuits follow a diet mainly consisting of the meat they can find and hunt locally, which has been suggested to be “effective in keeping the body warm, making the body strong, keeping the body fit, and even making that body healthy" [Edmund Searles, “Food and the Making of Modern Inuit Identities.” Food & Foodways: History & Culture of Human Nourishment 10 (2002): 55–78]]. In some parts of the world it is just either highly impractical to find Vegan food or it would be highly unwise to eat in this way given the specific climatic or geographic conditions of the region.
It will facilitate world food distribution

Agricultural systems are not there to feed people. Western agriculture is designed in the end to maximise profit. A host of security problems such as poverty, famine, war, and corruption are rooted in the underlying problem that there is an unequal access to food. Western lifestyles, which are the particular beneficiaries of this system – and diet in particular – can play a large part in depriving the world’s poor of much needed food.
Prevention of Animal Cruelty: The Killing Fields

The meat and dairy industry also primarily exist for profit. However their commodities are animals which are treated in an appalling manner in order to churn out the most product- the meat these animals provide as well as their by products: milk, eggs, wool, skin and whatever other remains may be used in other industries. The welfare provided for the animals is minimal; farm animals suffer a lot in their lives in order to produce the tremendous and unnatural amount of produce which they are forced to give. Animals which produce foods are manipulated in such a way that they work on a maximum rate of production to their expense. Chickens are a well known example in the UK, with a popular consumer movement encouraging the use of free range eggs. Common conditions for many factory animals include filthy and cramped conditions; enough to kill many who can’t cope, injection of drugs in order to increase growth rapidly which can resulting bodily deformations as well as mortal illness. Those animals that are designated to breed are artificially inseminated regularly and have their young taken away prematurely before being impregnated again. Forcible mutilation is another necessity. For example, piglets and chickens have their teeth clipped and parts of beaks removed without anaesthetic. Slaughter is not a painless event. 9.5 million pigs were slaughtered in the UK alone in 2007 through stunning, being shackled upside down, and then having their throats slit. It is the sticking (slitting of the throat) which kills the pig, not the stunning, and there are many instances of the pig still being conscious whilst they are being sticked. 'Mad Cow Disease' (vCJD) came about through a cost cutting expenditure, as cattle were fed neuron tissue from sheep and other cattle. It is blinkered to ignore the fact that the meat and dairy products that are consumed in restaurants, fast food chains and supermarkets comes from somewhere which we might not like. The only way to provide such cheap meat at such an enormous quantity (the shelves never run low) is to make production cheap which is at the suffering of the animals that are born, reared, transported and slaughtered in miserable conditions for our priveliged lifestyle.
If we want peace....

To meditate for world peace, to pray for a better world, and to work for social justice and environmental protection while continuing to purchase the flesh, milk and eggs of horribly abused animals exposes a disconnect that is so fundamental that it renders our efforts absurd, hypocritical and doomed to certain failure. --Dr. Will Tuttle in the World Peace Diet Do the lives of animals matter? We continue to learn that animals are more than we have understood. People around the globe are awakening to the importance of of becoming more compassionate. Someday people will look back and wonder how otherwise good people could have been involved in such a barbaric practice as torturing and killing other beings in order to eat their flesh. Corpse food is on its way out. There will be a big celebration the day the last slaughterhouse closes down. Educate yourself on the issues. Listen to Vegan World Radio, telling the story of the vegan revolution that is saving the animals, the planet and our health. http://www.Veganworldradio.org
Meat consumption should be reduced, but does NOT need to be eradicated

All the arguments above focus on the problems that arise from mass production of animal products; intensive farming, factory animals, mass slaughter. For all of these reasons, and for our general good health, we should consider reducing the amount of meat in our diet. If we all ate a smaller amount of organic, locally produced meat, then we could still enjoy a diverse diet without having such a negative impact on the environment. It is up to consumers to demand good quality products, rather than high volume at a low price.
Both countries would benefit from pooling sovereignty in an increasingly globalised world. For rela...

Both countries would benefit from pooling sovereignty in an increasingly globalised world. For relatively small states true independence is no longer possible, with countries like Switzerland and Norway at the mercy of bigger economic forces. For example, both countries’ agreements with the EU allow them the access to its enormous market that they need to survive economically, but they have to abide by EU rules that they have no influence over making. Norway in particular, as an EEA member must accept all EU single-market, employment, environment and competition rules, and even contribute to the EU budget. If they joined the EU, they would at least be given a say in the regulations they have to implement, and as their presence would strengthen the relatively more free-market camp led by the UK, Ireland and Denmark, they are likely to be happier with the rules that then result.
Both Norway and Switzerland already gain from their economic association with the European Union, bu...

Both Norway and Switzerland already gain from their economic association with the European Union, but they would realise much greater benefits if they formally joined the organisation. Being imperfectly integrated into the European economy means that consumers pay higher prices for goods and services than citizens of EU countries. Businesses are sheltered from full competition, which can lead to complacency and a loss of global competitiveness. And the nature of their relationships with Brussels means that their economies are inherently fragile – bilateral agreements could be cancelled by either side at any time. This would have little impact on the wider EU-economy, but would devastate much smaller Norway or Switzerland. The risks this involves were brought home in 2008 when Swiss voters had to approve an extension of the freedom of movement under the Schengen agreement to new EU-members Romania and Bulgaria; if the referendum had been rejected, the EU would have cancelled the whole bilateral deal on Schengen. So unless the two countries stay in step with the EU as it moves forward towards integration, they may lose many of the benefits they have already acquired. Given that in recent deals the EU has been relatively generous in the expectation that Switzerland and Norway will be encouraged to join the Union, there is a further risk that future treatment will be much less sympathetic if Brussels recognises that this is not going to happen.
The European project has been a great political success in first ensuring, and then extending democr...

The European project has been a great political success in first ensuring, and then extending democracy and stability within the European continent. As strong democracies Switzerland and Norway surely belong within the EU family, and should play their part in advancing stability and European values in the future, for example in the Western Balkans. Swiss fears about compromising their neutrality should not be an issue – EU states like Ireland and Austria prize their neutrality too. And for the EU, the entry of both Norway and Switzerland at the same time would help to maintain present balance between NATO members and neutral states.
Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy en...

Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy entry into the Union. As advanced economies with strong legal and political institutions, they would be easy for the EU to assimilate, especially given their close involvement in the Single Market already. Both would be net contributors to the EU budget, and would strengthen the EU at a time when it is still coping with poorer new members and would-be members in Eastern Europe. And by contributing financially to the EU in this way, Switzerland and Norway will benefit from increasing trade as Eastern and Central European states rapidly gain in prosperity with support from EU regional transfers.
Replacing their currencies with the Euro would also benefit both Switzerland and Norway. Over the p...

Replacing their currencies with the Euro would also benefit both Switzerland and Norway. Over the past ten years the Euro has gained in strength and credibility, and is now clearly the world’s second currency after the dollar. The high volatility of sterling shows the danger of trying to maintain your own currency as a national virility symbol, while Iceland shows the risk small countries face when financial trouble strikes. For Switzerland, switching to the Euro would allow it to capitalise on its banking expertise by becoming a true rival to London as Europe’s financial centre. For Norway, the Euro would help the country avoid “Dutch disease” – where a strong oil and gas industry pushes up the currency to the point where other businesses are severely hurt.
Both countries would benefit from pooling sovereignty in an increasingly globalised world. For rela...

Both countries greatly value their sovereignty and do not want to give it up to Brussels. The Swiss have a tradition of proud independence stretching back to the middle ages, while the Norwegians still remember what it was like to be politically dominated by Denmark and Sweden. In both, voters have consistently shown that they have no wish to compromise their sovereignty by joining the European Union’s superstate. The Swiss particularly fear their tradition of more direct democracy would be threatened with EU membership, as laws from Brussels could not be overturned by referendum as at present. And while it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over key policy areas such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club? How much are the concerns of smaller states taken seriously in the EU today?
Both Norway and Switzerland already gain from their economic association with the European Union, bu...

Both countries are among the most prosperous economies in the entire world and have nothing to gain from EU membership. Through their EEA and EFTA memberships, as well as bilateral deals with Brussels, both Norway and Switzerland have access to the Single Market and are fully integrated into the European economy. But by remaining outside the EU itself, neither has to sacrifice key elements of its domestic economy to Brussels in a way countries like the UK do. For cultural and environmental reasons both countries protect and subsidise their small family farms, which would not be possible inside the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Norway’s fishing industry also occupies an important place within the national psyche, and Norwegians are proud that good fisheries management within their 200 mile exclusion zone has left their fish stocks much healthier than those of EU neighbours who have fallen victim to the Common Fisheries Policy. And Swiss banking continues a proud tradition of independent financial expertise that might be lost to London if the country was just another part of the EU.
The European project has been a great political success in first ensuring, and then extending democr...

There is no moral obligation upon either state to join the EU. Both can continue to play a full part in promoting peace and stability outside the organisation. As a NATO member with a firmly internationalist outlook, Norway already makes a big contribution to peacekeeping around the world. Indeed its valuable role as an arbiter in bitter disputes such as the Israel-Palestine and Sri Lanka-Tamil conflicts might be lost if it was merely a small part of a big power bloc. Switzerland too already contributes to building stability in the Balkans, in partnership with EU countries. But its long tradition of neutrality would be clearly compromised by EU membership, especially as a Common Foreign and Security Policy, voiced from Brussels by a High Representative on behalf of all member states, is rapidly becoming a reality.
Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy en...

It is clear why the EU would like to welcome the rich Swiss and Norwegians within its embrace, but why would either country want to sign up for a project which would involve their citizens’ taxes being given away to other countries? EU waste and fraud are legendary, so it is easy to understand why voters have consistently rejected giving up their taxes to Brussels. As latecomers they are not in a strong position to bargain over entry terms, and can expect to become major net contributors, especially as their farmers are unlikely to gain much from the Common Agricultural Policy. Estimates of the cost of membership for Switzerland were set between SFr3 billion and SFr8 billion in 2004 – more than its entire defence budget.