BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised

There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and “strengthening” probation and parole systems[i]. The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers. The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions. There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance. [i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528
States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems

As distasteful as debaters, moral philosophers and constitutional lawyers may find it, society still has a need to punish criminals. Although it seems to lack logic or reason (inflicting suffering on a criminal cannot be recompense for what he has taken, and may even prevent him from properly compensating his victim), a criminal justice system which does not punish will not command the confidence of the public. If a criminal justice system is unable to command the confidence of the public, alternative methods of addressing criminal behaviour will be sought. Eliminating the role of punishment in criminal justice would put our entire judicial system at risk. The resolution calls for a minimal and carefully controlled use of force by the state. This use of force is necessary in order to provide protection for the state’s citizens in the long term – by leaving the prison system free to treat and control offenders who are truly violent and dangerous, and by preventing the social exclusion of non-violent offenders. While a state should endeavour to demonstrate the virtues of non violence and compromise, it can also fail in its duty to its citizens by being negligent of the needs of offenders, and wilfully ignorant of the most effective solutions to criminality.
It is impossibly expensive and lacks the kind of popular support required to get the 1969 mission of the ground

Our fascination with discovery and exploration – especially anything to do with space – is one of the enduring aspects of the human condition. There are many areas of scientific development for which there is little popular support as people don’t really see the point, however space exploration is one which retains support[i]. Polling levels no are at broadly the same level they were in the 1960s, receiving support from about forty per cent of the electorate. However, it’s worth noting that NASA has consistently higher public approvals than other federal agencies. It seems that, unsurprisingly, people aren’t that happy about the government spending any of their money but, if they’re going to do it, NASA gets more votes than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Internal Revenue Service. [i] Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Space Flight, Roger Launius, Space Policy 19 (2003) 163-175
There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions

Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is research that can be done away from work that cannot be done here. The benefits that could come from a low-gravity, non-atmospheric research facility are not about ‘collecting moon rocks’ there would be benefits in, for example, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) would benefit greatly from small radio telescopes based away from the distractions and interferences based on Earth[i]. As has been shown by the International Space Station, there is useful medical research that can be conducted in low or zero gravity, notably research based on aging. [i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008
There are simply better things to be spending money on

There are many worthy projects that could benefit from this funding, however that doesn’t defeat the importance of returning to the moon and developing a base there. There is absolutely nothing in the history of other manned projects into space that suggests that humanity as a whole is poorer, hungrier, sicker or more stupid because we did so. Rather, we received those remarkable pictures of the Earth from space confirming what we look like in a way no map ever could. The various detritus of the mission in terms of solid rocks as well as ephemeral experience to prove that there is a universe out there waiting for us to find it. A reminder, even in the darkest of times economically, that humanity has an astonishing capacity for exploration – both of the universe around us and within our own minds. Likewise the capacity of scientists and others to inspire us by showing our place in an extraordinary universe is beyond price. We left the cave, went over the hill, crossed the Atlantic, circumnavigated the globe, went into space, went to the Moon… And then stopped. It’s time to start again.
It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe

Colonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons. Any civilization that is serious about space exploration would probably have to start with the moon. It’s a comparatively simple mission which would allow us to learn the pitfalls and problems while staying within a few days of earth. The moon also provides a better base for SETI than Earth as Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would be shielded from the interference of Earth. Equally the Moon’s slow rotation would allow light-based observatories to undertake experiments lasting for days at a time. Most experts are agreed that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only life-bearing planet, to date we have not been serious investigating this issue despite the enormous implications it has for almost every area of human thought and activity.
The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon

The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years.[i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization. [i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,
We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.

If we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity. The technology required to land human beings on the surface of another planetary body is comparable. All of those involved in the original moon landing are now elderly it seems sensible to deploy that expertise before it is lost. Recorded knowledge is all well and good but experience is also valuable. Equally, one of the biggest justifications for NASA’s relatively modest budget – roughly nine billion dollars at the moment – is the trickledown technology from its innovations. Developing technology for survival in hostile alien environments may have applications on Earth such as inhabiting Antarctica or using resources vastly more efficiently
We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for

In many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two. The moon functions as a sort of attic for the Earth, a repository of rocks than are no longer found on earth. There are also resources, such as lunar glass and Helium3, which could be potentially very valuable if they are there in sufficient quantities, human beings can simply cover more territory than Robots and make assessments like these more easily. If these rare minerals exist in sufficient quantity they could potentially fund the whole project[i]. [i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008
It is impossibly expensive and lacks the kind of popular support required to get the 1969 mission of the ground

To make the kind of funding this project would require available, massive public and political will would be needed. This simply doesn’t exist. The Cold War mentality of the ‘60s provided a justification. Having been beaten to get a man into space, there was an imperative for the American people to beat the USSR to the Moon. No such justification exists for going the at all now, let alone going back. The only country in the world with both the technical and financial resources to do this, the United States, simply doesn’t have the political stomach to do it.
There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions

There are simply no good scientific reasons to send a manned flight to the moon. The desire to do so may have good justification in science fiction but not science fact[i]. This research is simply not related to the reality of modern cosmology, it will tell us nothing about how the universe works or, frankly, anything we don’t even know already or could find out through unmanned missions. The idea that there is serious research to be done is simply untrue. Cosmology is being conducted at the edge of the universe and the beginning of time. It’s not about collecting moon rocks. [i] “Brave New World”, Editorial, Nature, 1 February 2007
There are simply better things to be spending money on

Whichever argument you pursue for going to the moon there are better and cheaper ways to achieve those designated goals. Whether it’s scientific, business-related, or as a ‘practice’ for exploration of deep space, there are better ways of spending the money and deploying the scientists, engineers and technicians. To waste not only the money but, more importantly, the time and expertise in the name of extending a national mythology or a political ego-fix is absurd. The cost of a moon landing, let alone an extended colonization, is foolish when there are other projects in all of those fields that are crying out for public funding.
It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe

Whatever the merits of the search for ET, none of this requires a human presence on the moon all of the observational technology required to undertake the research could be controlled from Earth. It doesn’t require a human presence on the moon, indeed if the purpose is for scientific research, there seems to be a strong argument for not having a human presence. A human presence on the dark side of the Moon provides extra complications – and therefore extra costs – to simply keep the scientists alive. It seems likely that anybody based in such a situation would have to spend a large amount of their time and effort simply staying alive and performing monitoring functions that could as easily be provided from Huston.
The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon

This is simply wishful thinking on the basis of current technology getting a manned mission to another planet is simply not on the radar – or even close. In the light of this sobering fact there is no reason to go to the moon as some sort of test run for something we’re never going to do. Even if one were to think that it may one day be possible to travel to other planets, surely the sensible thing would be to spend the money developing that technology rather than blowing it on a manned trip to the moon we may well never need.
We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.

The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems. In addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time. Equally the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage. We still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts. As far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.
We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for

The idea of a mining community on the moon is even more absurd than that of a scientific one. However valuable the minerals found the cost of extraction would never be covered. Furthermore the quantities required to meet the cost of extraction, let alone make a profit, would have a downward effect on the price of the commodity on earth. The whole exercise would become self-defeating. Equally, although chemicals such as Helium 3 would be useful if thermonuclear fusion was being used to produce energy it is a technology that does not yet exist.[i] Once again it would seem to make sense to invest the money in fusion technology first, then, if it happens, we how where to find Helium 3 – after there’s a practical use for it, not before. [i] Lasker, John, ‘Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel’, Wired, 15 December 2006
The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods.

It should be up to business what it charges for its goods; if it decides to charge less than the cost price, it must have a market-based reason to do so, and it is not the place of government to intervene. It is well-known that consumers focus on the prices of a few staple goods, such as bread, milk, baked beans, etc. So it is rational for retailers with high fixed costs (in wages, rents, power etc.) to set the prices for these key products very low, and even make a loss on selling them, because it will entice more shoppers into their stores. These consumers will also buy other products on which the store does make a profit, and overall sales volumes and profits will rise. improve this
Loss leaders are an inexpensive option available to less well-off customers.

The use of heavily discounted loss-leaders is good for shoppers, especially low-income consumers, who are most appreciative of a bargain that will help them stretch their limited budget. Customers are not stupid but instead canny consumers who are well able to see through the marketing ploys of the big retailers. Often price-conscious shoppers will stock up on the most heavily discounted items, but then go elsewhere for the rest of their shop. On the other hand, attempts in countries like France to regulate retailers have just resulted in protection for the existing firms that dominate the marketplace, and in a lack of competition, which drives up the cost of the weekly groceries for everyone. The same items can cost 30% more in France, where loss leading is banned, than in Germany where it is not and discount stores flourish1. Prohibiting this strategy will hurt consumers. 1: Economist, "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition," May 15, 2008.
Banning loss leaders will interfere in the market, causing a net economic loss for society.

By requiring retailers to sell items at least at cost level, the government is creating an artificial price floor, which will cause prices to rise and create a net loss for society. Basic economics explains that artificial price floors upset the free market, costing a net economic loss for society, which will eventually be paid by all sectors involved. The harm that prohibiting loss leaders causes to prices is well documented. According to a study by the French newspaper La Tribune, a basket of identical items costs 30% more in France than it does in Germany, partly because of the ban on loss leaders1. In fact, this is the very reason why Ireland repealed its loss leaders ban. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment said at the time, "The single most important reason for getting rid of the [law] is that it has kept prices of groceries in Ireland at an artificially high level." Indeed, a study published in the British Food Journal concluded that the Irish law had caused prices to rise, and a separate study came to the same conclusion regarding France's loss leader prohibition. More generally, a report from the American Anti-Trust Institute shows that throughout history, such price laws have typically raised prices to consumers. 1Economist. "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition." May 15, 2008. improve this
Selling at a loss is a practical way of shifting products that have failed to sell.

Retailers find themselves all the time with stock that they need to unload, that nobody is buying. This is especially a concern with items that have a sell-by date after which they may not be sold and so become worthless. In such a situation, selling below cost price is economically rational, as it means that the retailer realises some money on their stock rather than none at all. Visit any open-air market at 3.00 p.m. and you will see traders slashing the prices of unsold perishable goods for just this reason. If a retailer is going to sell an item below price level, it might as well use that item as a marketing device. Can you imagine the same market trader slashing his prices, but not shouting them to passersby? Sometimes retailers need to sell items below the price level, and they should be allowed to market them cleverly in order to make up for some of the loss in revenue. improve this
Banning loss leaders would help suppliers

The practice of loss leaders is bad for suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are often forced by the dominant retail giants to participate in discount schemes, sharing the losses at the dictate of the retailer. If they refuse they will be dropped by the retailer and cut off from the marketplace. The American Antitrust Institute has concluded that these "Resale price maintenance (RPM)" agreements—which are agreed upon because retailers have all of the leverage—are usually illegal.1 Prohibiting loss leaders will prevent this abuse of market dominance by the big retail companies and ensure a fair deal for our farmers. 1John B. Kirkwood, Albert Foer, and Richard Burnell, “The American Antitrust Institute On the European Commission’s Proposed Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on Vertical Restraints,” American Antitrust Institute, September 27, 2009, page 5-6.
The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects.

Typically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive. 1 Robert Smith, “Lack of loss-leader sales good news for brand conscious wine industry,”National Business Review (New Zealand), June 19, 2009   improve this
Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics.

Loss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone. 1Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Institut d’Economie Industrielle (IDEI Working Paper #658)
The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods.

The government should be able to stop large retailers from exploiting consumers and producers. There is no doubt that retailers have a reason for selling items below market value, but they are only able to profit from such an illogical strategy by exploiting consumers and producers. They trick consumers into buying more expensive items and they force producers who have minimal leverage to lower the wholesale price in order to take the loss leader price into account. improve this