BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The risk of creating dependence

While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is that many of these poor communities are groups of outsiders. They often discriminated against by the rest of the population, including decision makers from private business. For example in France employers databases often have the abbreviation BBR or NBBR to indicate if someone is white.(SOS Racisme, ‘Discrimination, Présentation’) These communities often find themselves abandoned, and at the mercy of the state. Despite its inefficiencies, the state remains the main organisation capable to reaching out to all different communities, of gathering funds and redistributing them, and of making new investment opportunities in places where the free market would not otherwise have created them. At the risk of some inefficiency, this problem does require solvency, and while ideally things might run otherwise, this is the closest solution to the problem at hand. Governments have also been creative with their subsidies schemes, often getting the private sector involved by providing them with incentives such as tax breaks.
Social change

The change from an agricultural or rural economy to an urban one does not preclude subsidies as  a way of lifting people out of poverty  it simply means that subsidies have to be more targeted. As most cities continue to grow and attract more and more people from rural areas, the state needs to find a way to address the problem of urban migration, which is closely linked to the formation of poor communities particularly around cities. Illegal immigration also contributes tremendously to this problem, particularly in areas such as the Mexico-California border. Targeted subsidies can slow the pace of migration, by giving those in the countryside and in poorer countries a better standard of living where they already live.
Communities should be engineered to be self sufficient

Telling poor communities they should help themselves is not the answer; they already want to help themselves. Poverty often occurs in a cycle, meaning that for many it is inescapable. Education in poor areas is often worse, leading to people being less qualified for higher paying jobs, stuck in badly paid work, therefore living in undesirable housing that often has inadequate education, and thus the cycle continues for their children. The only way for people to escape this cycle is with government subsidies. Some would argue that forcing people to live in these conditions while others live in wealth is more immoral than asking the wealthy to help the poor.
Subsidies are the most efficient way for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders.

Poor communities, often concentrated in rural areas or around large cities, carry a large risk for social instability, whether through epidemic illnesses, crime, drug abuse or political and social revolts. Even the most developed countries find it difficult to deal with these communities without paying proper attention to their development. The suburbs of Paris have recently been in the attention of the press for the violent riots led mainly by poor, unemployed, young men from immigrant families who felt abandoned by their own government (BBC News, ‘Timeline: French Riots’, 2005). France is by no means the only country dealing with such problems, and in order to avoid such high-risk behaviour, the state should be encouraged to create new subsidy schemes that address these communities in particular. For example, employment could be subsidised by paying companies to create new jobs in such deprived areas.
Poor communities create criminality

The longer suburbs sectioned off for the economically vulnerable are in existence, the more likely they will turn into real slums, creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of Latin America. Latin America contains 13 of the 20 countries with the highest intentional homicide rate (Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008). Brazil is one of the most criminalized countries of the world with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents, muggings, robberies, kidnappings and gang violence (The Economist, ‘No End of Violence’, 2007). These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting ground for illegal activities. Subsidies would help people escape poverty and as a result break the cycle of crime.
Subsidies create a sense of social equality

Subsidies help create the equality and non-discrimination that is essential in the new multi-cultural states of today. With more and more people moving across the globe and the clear realization of inequalities in lifestyles, creating this sense of equality is essential. If we are serious about our commitment to universal human rights, including the right to equal survival chances and opportunities, then we need to consider using subsidies to promote these values. Many of the poorest areas have a disproportionate number of immigrants or ethnic minorities, Seine-Saint-Denis for example has the largest percentage of immigrants in France(Wikipedia, ‘Demographics of France’) and is one of the poorest department’s(Astier, ‘French ghettos mobilise for election’, 2007) so these communities are where the state needs to show that it is committed to non-discrimination by helping with subsidies. Without such a commitment to equality, problems like the unrest in the suburbs of Paris, the reaction to the flooding of New Orleans, crimes in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and South Africa will simply become uncontrollable.
Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact

Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).
Government supervised redistribution of wealth is inefficient

Given that in general state taxation and redistribution systems have been under fire for being inefficient, it is doubtful that subsidies, as a particular form of tax redistribution would be more efficient. Not only is a bureaucratic mechanism for creating and distributing subsidies a nightmare, but the effects of such subsidies have often been questioned as well. Fuels subsidies to keep prices down for example might help the poor to heat their homes but they also encourage wasting fuel and not getting the most efficient heating systems so more fuel is used resulting in more need for subsidies (Jakarta Globe, ‘Subsidies a Costly, Inefficient Crutch’, 2010). The needs of poor communities, such as the immigrant communities in the suburbs of Paris, as often much larger than the state can provide, and patch solutions are often no solution at all. Subsidies will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment and the concentration of the poor and immigrants in particular areas. Other solutions are required for such problems and oftentimes, the involvement of the private sector has proven to be more efficient. Encouraging a more competitive, dynamic economy by reducing the burdens of taxation and regulation is the best way to provide a route out of poverty, especially if improved educational provision and meritocratic hiring policies are also implemented.
A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled.

Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2]. Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term. [1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011 [2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014
Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi.

Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians. When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath. [1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011
Ushered in the liberation of Libya.

Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]?  The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4]. [1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012 [2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013 [3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org [4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014
The intervention backfired.

The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement “permit all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1]. Specifically, NATO targeted military weapon stores and facilities not homes and camps as Gaddafi’s military did. 72 civilians were killed during this bombing campaign [2] a small number compared to the thousands of sorties. No one can know how long the conflict would have lasted without NATO intervention, it is therefore impossible to state that the conflict lasted six times longer than it would have without NATO involvement. [1] Richard, Roth, ‘UN Security council approves no fly zone in Libya’, cnn.com, 18 March 2011 [2] BBC news Africa, ‘Nato hits back at Libya's civilian deaths report’, bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2012
It increased conflict and instability in Libya and its neighbours.

The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2]. [1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013 [2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6
Created a large divide in the UN security council.

Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2]. The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operations are successful and have acted on the Syrian crisis too. It approved a mission to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria and evacuate people from Homs. This shows how the UNSC usually works; where the major powers can agree they do and act, where they can’t the council does nothing. This would have happened in Syria regardless of what occurred in Libya; Syria is simply worth more strategically to Russia than Libya was. [1] Con, Coughlin, ‘While Putin still believes the west is still an enemy, Russia will not change’, telegraph.co.uk, 3 December 2010 [2] Nicholas, Kosturos, ‘What Drives Russia’s Unrelenting Position on Syria?’, americanprogress.org, 13 August 2012
A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled.

Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1]. He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda. His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened. [1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011 [2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011
Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi.

From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1]. Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.  The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed. [1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com [2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011
Ushered in the liberation of Libya.

The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did. Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation. After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3]. [1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012 [2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org [3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013
The intervention backfired.

NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for protecting civilians in Libya [2] but NATO just did the opposite. Their operation came at the expense of increasing harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately including those in Sirte who posed no threat to civilians as Sirte remained in government hands right to near the end of the conflict and continued to support the rebels offering them weapons, military training, intelligence and troops on ground [1], even when they rejected cease fire offers from the government that would have helped end the crisis and spare civilians. [1] Alan, Kuperman, ‘Lessons from Libya; How not to intervene’, harvard.edu September 2013 [2] Robert, winnet and Richard Spencer, ‘UN approves no fly zone as British troops prepare for action’, telegraph.co.uk, 17 March 2011
It increased conflict and instability in Libya and its neighbours.

The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi has had unpleasant side effects. Gaddafi’s army involved a large number of mercenaries, many of them Tuaregs from northern Mali. When Gaddafi was overthrown they returned to their homeland without having given up their arms. These returnees helped spark a rebellion that deposed a democratically elected president under a coup and prompted yet another western intervention[1]. In Libya the situation never fully calmed down with the country left dealing with militia groups and terrorist attacks. The US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed, Prime minister Ali Zaidan was kidnapped and there are reports of ongoing insurgencies [2]. Previously Libyans may have lived under an eccentric dictator but at least they had order and stability. [1] Owen, Jones, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success now here we are engaging in the blowback in Mali’, independent.co.uk, 13 Jan 2013 [2] Chris, Stephen, ‘Assassination pushes Libya towards civil war, two years after Gaddafi’s death’, thegurdian.com, 19 October 2013
Created a large divide in the UN security council.

The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1]. This made Russia and China who initially had opposed any intervention feel cheated. The divide has affected the response of the security council to other crises notably in Syria where over a hundred thousand people have been killed and an even larger number displaced. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on Syria three times [2] fearing that it may end like the Libyan case a fact that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stressed; “Russia will not allow a repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria” [3]. Such divisionism has destroyed the credibility of the security council [4] and created an unintended casualty of the Libyan intervention. [1] David, Blair, ‘Putin thinks Cameron conned him over Syria, he won’t allow that to happen again with Syria’, telegraph.co.uk, 2 August 2012 [2] Rick, Gladstone, ‘Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions’, nytimes.com, 19 July 2012 [3] Global research, ‘Russia Will not Allow Repetition of “Libya Scenario” in Syria’ globalresearch.ca [4] Mick, B. Krever, ‘Why won’t the UN Security council intervene in Syria?’, cnn.com 14,January 2012
A DNA database would reduce the time spent tracking down suspects

A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means. During 2008/09 in the United Kingdom, 'almost 6 in 10 crime scene profiles loaded to the National DNA Database were matched to a subject profile'1. There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty. 1 NDNAD. (2009). National DNA Database: Annual Report 2007-09. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from
Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is unlawful

The European Court of Human Rights was quite clear when it stated that retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful1. The Strasbourg court made a unanimous decision that the UK keeping the DNA of the unconvicted on a database permanently was contrary to human rights and therefore illegal. They stated that due to the high level of disruption to human rights, on this issue the court would not have much "margin of appreciation" or leeway. Subsequent attempts to justify the database have been dismissed by the Commission as failing to provide 'clear, justifiable reasons for holding on to the DNA data from people who had not been convicted of a crime'2. The Commission also felt the retention of DNA profiles 'failed to recognise there were a disproportionate number of young black men, vulnerable people and children on the database'2 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News: 2 Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer:
DNA testing is fallible, and therefore should not be used as the basis of convictions

Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995 an 18 month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was 'dry-labbing' or faking results of DNA comparisons1. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, the company used by police to analyse its DNA samples was shown to have secretly kept the genetic samples and personal details of 'hundreds of thousands' of arrested people, stoking fears that, if lost, they could be planted as evidence2. The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection. 1 Johnston, D. (1997, April 16). Report criticizes scientific testing at F.B.I Crime Lab. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times:  2 Barnett, A. (2006, July 16). Police DNA database 'is spiralling out of control'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian: improve this