BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Presents a bold new path

Labour can be bold without turning to the left. It could endorse bolder action on climate change, much greater local democracy, and increasing the use of new technologies. The concern should not be about a policy being left or right wing but about its beneficial (or otherwise) consequences. When labour has won in the past it has been by taking centerist trends and making them their own – for example Wilson’s ‘white fires of industry’.[1] [1] Skelton, David, ‘What does the Labour party do now?’, Demos Quarterly, 31 July 2015, http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-6/what-does-the-labour-party-do-now/
Provides greater choice

It is false that there is a lack of choice now. There are plenty of other parties that voters could vote for if they believe the main two parties do not provide them with the choice they want. On the right there is UKIP and on the left the Greens and also other much smaller more extreme parties standing pain a few constituencies. If there were sufficient numbers who want to vote for a more left wing agenda then the Greens would be doing much better than they are – they currently only have one seat.
Lack of difference encourages Punch and Judy politics

“I'm fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing.” Not Jeremy Corbyn, David Cameron in 2005 when he became opposition leader.[1] Every new opposition party leader starts out saying they want to change Westminster’s style of politics; Miliband was the same. Yet they get sucked in all the same. The robust Punch and Judy style is part and parcel of British politics having happened during periods where the parties were ideologically far apart in the past; there were comnplaints about jeering and interuptions in the 1970s.[2] [1] Cameron, David, ‘Leadership acceptance speech, BritishPoliticalSpeech.org, 2005, http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=315 [2] Parkinson, Justin, ‘Is Prime Minister’s Questions really getting worse?’, BBC News, 18 February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26239991
A shift to the left means labour is no longer a party of government

The biggest news of the last few years in politics has been the fragmentation of the electorate; the increase in voting for the Scottish National Party, Greens, and UK Independence Party. It can no longer be certain that Labour will pick up most votes by staying close to the centre ground. In all but the very safest seats there are more non-voters than there are people who vote for the winning party. It was notable that many of the safest seats in the country, held by Labour in 2010, were toppled by the SNP in 2015 including Glasgow North East that had an almost 16,000 majority in 2010 fell to the SNP with a majority of over 7,000.[1] [1] Glasgow North East (UK Parliament constituency), Wikipedia, last checked 16 September 2015
The Labour party is deprived of talent on the front bench

Far from depriving the Labour Party of talent he has been drawing new talent into the party. Labour gained 15,000 members in the three days since Jeremy Corbyn’s victory on top of those who signed up during the leadership campaign.[1] Ultimately it is the membership and its size and diversity that provides the talent of the future, not an elite clique of individuals at the top. [1] Withnall, Adam, ‘More than 15,000 join Labour party as full members in wake of Jeremy Corbyn victory’, The Independent, 13 September 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-more-than-15000-join-labour-party-as-full-members-in-wake-of-islington-mps-victory-10498813.html
Going left is step back not a step forward

Corbyn is not tied to the past and his agenda is not going to simply be a rehash of Michael Foot’s manifesto in 1983. The policies Corbyn is advocating now would not have been considered particularly left wing in 1983 and most are not particularly radical even now. Policies like rent controls, peoples’ QE, and renationalising the railways may be statist but are potentially popular solutions to issues that concern voters; the cost of housing, that QE benefited the banks and no one else, and that commuting is cramped and costly.
Brings labour back to its core values

The original values of the Labour party were “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” and even today the Labour party aims to “serve the public interest” as well as to create “a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong”, “an open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people”, and “a healthy environment”.[1] In the last parliament Labour supported there being a cap on welfare spending.[2] More recently Labour abstained on a Conservative welfare bill that many felt was too harsh in its cuts.[3] Corbyn, and a move to the left, will bring Labour back to its core values rather than supporting Conservative policies and austerity that harms individuals. [1] Clause IV, Labourcounts, http://www.labourcounts.com/oldclausefour.htm, accessed 15 September 2015 [2] Wintour, Patrick, ‘Miliband: Labour not abandoning its values with cap on welfare spending’, The Guardian, 6 June 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/06/miliband-labour-cap-welfare-spending [3] Eaton, George, ‘Welfare bill passed as 48 Labour MPs defy leadership and vote against’, The Spectator, 20 July 2015, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/welfare-bill-passed-48-labour-mps-defy-leadership-and-vote-against
Presents a bold new path

Since the start of the 1990s Labour has moved to the right to contest the ‘centre ground’ of politics. This worked in 1997 when the Conservatives were a spent force after 17 Years in power. Tony Blair successfully stole the conservatives moderate policies. However this has resulted in the centre ground moving to the right with policies such as austerity and welfare cuts becoming a consensus. Labour needs to move left to fight on their own ground forcing other parties to match their more populist policies such as renationalising the railways.
Provides greater choice

Corbyn in his last campaign rally argued “fundamentally many people are turned off by a political process when the major parties are not saying anything different  enough about how we run the economy”. [1]This lack of choice has been a complaint by voters for years – ever since Tony Blair made New Labour electable by moving to the centre. Jeremy Corbyn now gives the electorate a real choice compared to the Conservative party; tackling the deficit through tax rises (rather than cutting spending, nationalising the railways, peoples Quantitaive Easing, don’t replace trident, and rent controls.[2]   [1] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Corbyn: it’s time for a new kind of politics’, The Guardian, 12 September 2015 [2] Magazine, ’24 things that Jeremy Corbyn believes’, BBC News, 13 September 2015, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
Lack of difference encourages Punch and Judy politics

The public “are totally turned off by a style of politics which seems to rely on the levels of club house theatrical abuse that you can throw across at each other in parliament and across the airwaves.”[1] This style is necessary to extentuate the small areas where there are differences between the parties. Introduce real differences on the big issues of government, particularly the economy and society, then such minor point scoring fades into insignificance. [1] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Corbyn: it’s time for a new kind of politics’, The Guardian, 12 September 2015
A shift to the left means labour is no longer a party of government

A shift to the left means that Labour is no longer a real contender for government. This is not only bad for Labour but bad for the country as a whole. Voters need to have a choice between parties that stand a realistic chance of getting into power to have a real choice. By moving away from the centre where most of the votes are labour is no longer a serious contender. In the UK it is already the case that the average voter for a party holds more centrist, or moderate, policy positions than the party they vote for.[1] [1] Voters’ Policy Preferences Much More Centrist than those of Political Parties, Compass, June 2015, http://home.kieskompas.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/UK-Landscape-proximity.pdf
The Labour party is deprived of talent on the front bench

Numerous former front benchers and government ministers under the last Labour government will not serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet. Most obviously two of the four leadership contenders; Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper.[1] This deprives the party of experienced parliamentarians who know government and what it takes to win elections. [1] Wintour, Patrick, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Labour frontbenchers rule out serving in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet’, The Guardian, 12 September 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/labour-frontbenchers-rule-out-serving-in-jeremy-corbyn-shadow-cabinet
Corporate influence distracts politicians from the needs of their constituents.

Corporations represent the collective labour, goals, capital and ideas of a vast number of people. Far from representing a “person” who is accorded undue influence and significance by politicians, corporations are crucial in allowing major contributors to national economies to have a say in the affairs of the states that govern their activities. It has already been established that corporations- even profit-led corporations- are capable of operating under complex regimes of objectives and goals. Not all corporations bow to the profit motive solely and exclusively. Suppose- following the Bradly Smith article quoted above- that a corporation faced the prospect of downsizing unless it could access a lucrative government subsidy. Loss of jobs would anger the company’s workers union. The corporation would have every incentive to use its influence to affect the decisions of the politicians responsible for distributing the subsidy. Moreover, in expressing an opinion on the matter, the corporation would be reflecting the views not only of its shareholders, but also of its workers and their union, it suppliers, its creditors. Corporations can have an insight into the economic processes driving particular states that politicians may lack. Corporations concentrate very specific skills, skills that may not be reflected in a civil service, and are often based placed to provide opinions on- for example- trade relations with foreign states or the educational and research projects that a government should invest in. Individual students and scientists are unlikely to be able to muster this much influence. Corporate entities represent a number of objectives, each supported by a large number of natural individuals. Even if a business corporation is sometimes at odds with its workers, those workers would still agree that they have an interest in the success of that corporation. Politicians do not court the support of corporations because they are wealthy or powerful as “individuals”, but because they contain significant numbers of voters with comparable views, concerns and aspirations.
Corporate influence distracts politicians from the needs of their constituents.

The content of public speech is informed as much by the ideas and convictions of individuals engaged in free expression as it is by the concurrent acts of expression engaged in by other individuals. Free speech is a product of society and the processes driving the development and growth of society. The environment in which free speech is currently exercised is characterised by pervasive acts of expression – television commercials, billboards, spam email and advertisements on social media sites. Each of these forms of media is aimed at influencing opinions and behaviours. Active engagement with a book or a movie is often a prerequisite if an individual is to be influenced by its content.. The audience for the content contained in an advert does not necessarily choose to engage with its message. As a result of this, adverts are uniquely placed to bring issues and perspectives to the attention of individuals who might otherwise have been unaware of them. Advertising is a powerful political tool. For this reason the manner in which political causes can be advertised and the amount of funding spent on those adverts is, almost without exception, strictly regulated in most liberal democracies. Commercial content carried by for-profit organisations such as newspapers and television channels is expensive. The prominence of a message is affected by the amount of money that can be spent on increasing its length, rebroadcasting it and showing it to new audiences. When it comes to political speech, spending money is the best way to increase the efficacy and persuasiveness of a message. Irrespective of the qualities of a particular campaign, the qualifications of its candidates or the evidence underlying its policy proposals, its effectiveness will still be measured in the amount of money that it is able to spend on advertising. Legal restrictions on political spending are intended to prevent political speech from becoming a battle of budget rather than ideas – campaign finance laws are designed to protect the integrity, quality and efficacy of speech. In the USA the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act achieved this goal by preventing corporations from funding “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a caucus or 60 days of a general election. “Electioneering communications” were defined by the acts as publications that named a federal candidate (a candidate for a presidential election, for example). The Act prevented interest groups indirectly affiliated with particular candidates from spending money to support a candidates’ message. Although there are limits on the income that a politician can directly receive from donors, different rules apply to organisations that are not directly affiliated with that politician. And although a politician may receive criticism for receiving corporate money, corporations can contribute to causes indirectly, by providing funds of issue groups.
Having children is our duty and responsibility

We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty. *The Economist Online, 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations
Having children guarantees support for parents

From parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide. *Worldcrunch, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091308,00.html?iid=pf-mai...
Having children is emotionally draining for parents

Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents.
It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.

There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.
Not having children promotes gender equality

There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women.
Having children is the essence of existence for every creature

There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.
The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.

Having children can be counterproductive in achieving a desirable society. First of all, having children is by no means necessary for possessing all those valuable traits. All of them can be developed though other experiences as well. Secondly, having kids may actually lead to society being less desirable. For instance, parents being exhausted by constant absorption with their children become less productive. They can also become disillusioned or frustrated by their offspring, which will result in their general bitterness.
Having children is emotionally draining for parents

The level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”* *Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.html
It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.

Four out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane. *Shah 2010, http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Not having children promotes gender equality

Social and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division. *Goodley, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/31/cmi-equal-pay-report