BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cost could be spent on other things

Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games.[1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank[2]. While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football. It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase[3]. [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/China-in-Gabon-23-Jan-12-Hermanno.pdf [2]World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank, http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013, http://www.blackenterprise.com/money/afcon-soccer-big-business-south-afr...
Empty seats

Organizers in Gabon had to hand out free tickets to fill stadia[1]. This not only makes the tournament appear unpopular to TV viewers, it reduces the revenues of the event. It would be better for the sport if the Africa Cup of Nations was held in countries that are likely to sell out more of the matches; this means countries with bigger populations than Gabon and Equatorial Guinea that can pull in a domestic audience. [1] Sport24, “Empty seats plague AFCON”, Sport 24, 2012, http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/AFCON/Empty-seats-plague-AFCON-20120203
Showcasing countries with poor human rights records

Allowing a country to host a major sporting event gives them a big boost in international prestige. Repressive regimes to not deserve this. Equatorial Guinea, a dictatorship run by Teoodoro Obiang, is one of the world’s worst human rights offenders, with the worst possible scores for civil liberties and political rights according to Freedom House[1]. Gabon, while rated by Freedom House as better than Equatorial Guinea, also has a bad human rights record, with “harsh prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention, ritual killings, police use of excessive force, … widespread government corruption … and forced child labor [sic]”[2]. [1] Freedom House, “Equatorial Guinea”, Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/equatorial-guinea#... [2] US State Department, Gabon 2012 Human Rights Report, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/204333.pdf
The ACN in Gabon shows what can be done by smaller African nations

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries. The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.
Legacy of infrastructure

This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament[1]. In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China.[2] [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8463972.stm [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/China-in-Gabon-23-Jan-12-Hermanno.pdf
Helps small businesses

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators.[1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese.[2] [1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html [2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html
Cost could be spent on other things

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on. The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.
Danger for Abuse

Many children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder.[1] While it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is just as likely that in some of these households parents would crack down violently (again, either emotionally or physically ) on their children.  Such actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and in future generations.  It is difficult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong argument against its uniform adoption.  [1] ‘Behaviour Problems in Children and Adolescents’, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/parents/behaviour.php
Authority Aversion

A short argument, but a potentially powerful one.  The assumption that children will not act out even more under such a regime in a bid to lash out at parents is untenable.  Misbehaviour at school is often a rebellion against authority anyway, and the ultimate authority in most children’s lives is the parents.  Therefore, as acting out against both of these institutions is consistent with the misbehaving mind set, it follows that tying school misbehaviour to parental detriments is unlikely to affect the child and may even serve to encourage their bad deeds.
Parental Incentives

The danger for abuse argument from the opposition side is a good counterargument.  Moreover, one might analyse the probabilities that this particular incentive will be a tipping point in the case of marginal parents (the ones that are not already fully involved in their children’s discipline for whom this might be the tipping point).  Most caring parents will already be quite invested and do the best they can because they care for their child.  Those who do lapse likely have some sort of structural familial problems, whether they hold many jobs and work very hard to keep the family going, or are simply bad parents.  In these cases, is this likely to be the factor that changes these parents’ behaviours?  Unlikely.
Parental Responsibility

The “unjust” argument is a good counter.  One could cite some neurobiology evidence that lack of discipline is due to complex cognitive deficits that manifest through delayed brain development even in otherwise normal seeming children, which belies the “parental responsibility/failure” view. To start with, cognitive deficits can be caused by genetic factors or other things which started before birth, and can stop children being able to function normally.[1] [1] Tynan, W. Douglas, ‘Cognitive Deficits’, Medscape Reference, 3 June 2013, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917629-overview
Parental Incentives

Addressing the behavioural problems of children requires active parental participation.  However, in many cases, parents are either not fully aware of their children’s problems, or more importantly, delay the active disciplining of their children.  This is critical, as for the cycle of negative and positive reinforcement to be effective in behaviour modification, there must be a temporal link between misbehaviour and any potential punishment.  In a desire to avoid future fines, or whatever the penalty the parents face, there is an active incentive to not only intervene in the child’s misbehaviour, but also to do so in a timely way, which is the most proven way to change children’s behaviour.  Moreover, if there is any tendency for parents to overlook or avoid the problems of chronically unruly children, this serves as an impetus for keeping up with discipline notices and paying attention to the child’s infractions.  A lack of parental involvement has for example regularly been cited as being partially to blame for the riots in the UK during August 2011.[1] [1] Gentleman, Amelia, ‘UK riots: ‘Being liberal is fine, but we need to be given the right to parent’’, guardian.co.uk, 10 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/uk-riots-liberal-right-parent
Collaborative Approach

In order for a child’s misbehaviour to be successfully remedied, the child must receive a consistent message on what is appropriate both at home and at school.  In many instances parents may condone behaviour that schools and teacher find unacceptable.  In other instances, professionals at schools can aid parents in targeting specific behaviours to work on in a specific order in a program that integrates the child’s behaviour at both school and home.  Moreover, uniform and consistent rewards and negative reinforcements from school and home are tremendously useful for helping rehabilitate a child’s behaviour.[1] When initiating such programs, the major problem is often that the parents give in and do not adhere to the agreed upon program, which serves to teach the child that unacceptable behaviour is sometimes condonable.  It’s understandable that parents, who must be with the children a majority of the time, sometimes may find it easier to simply give in and pacify the child and inadvertently award destructive behaviour.  Therefore, a system of parental investment, as proposed here, will ensure that the parents have something riding on sticking to a disciplinary program as well, which ultimately aids the child.  In the case of parents being penalized for criminal offenses by children, one can modify this argument to fit by noting that often juvenile facilities will use schools as part of a behavioural modification program, therefore the consistency noted above is still critical.  [1] Robinson, Virginia, ‘Bridging the gap between school and home’, Raising Achievement Update, July 2008, http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/bridging-gap-between-school-an...
Children Held Accountable

Often, children who have been trapped in a cycle of lack of discipline and disciplinary problems tend not to care about their punishment.[1]  Detention may be seen as a welcome respite from classes, and other punishments over time may cease to make an impression on the child.  After all, there is only so much that an institution can do to discipline a child.  Using this mechanism opens up a far more effective repertoire of discipline.  More importantly, while the child may cease to regard any punishments handed down on him or her, often there will still be a desire to avoid actively harming the parents, which occurs under this system.[2] The argument also extends in the case of criminal punishments.  In the psychology of a child, he or she may not fully internalize the effects on their future a shoplifting arrest may have.  However, the thought of their parents being punished in such an offense may lead to the deterrence necessary to prevent such actions.  In effect, the argument is that when punishments to the child him or herself fail to act as a deterrent, the child seeing punishments imposed on the parents as a result of his or her actions may reinvigorate the deterrent effect.  In addition, this allows an extra tool in the teacher’s arsenal, and the mere thought of perhaps “triggering” a parental punishment may help bring some children into line.  [1] Pawel, Jody Johnston, ‘Child Abuse of Discipline: What is the Difference?’, Parent’s Toolshop, http://www.parentstoolshop.com/HTML/tips8.htm [2] ‘Mother jailed for girls’ truancy’, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1984502.stm
Parental Responsibility

In most cases, in which the child is not subject to some sort of constitutional problem (genetic condition or otherwise), the disruptive behaviour of a child is a reflection of in adequate parental intervention over time.   A normal child under normal circumstances should be expected to conform to behavioural expectations, and the failure to do so represents a partial inadequate job by the parents.  The result is a cost that is transmitted to society.  Children that are disruptive in school or in society via the criminal justice system cost the system extra money either in school resources and time or judicial-police resources as well as in the more obvious costs such as fixing vandalism and graffiti.[1] Even worse; if a student drops out as a result of his discipline problems the cost to society has been estimated as $232,000-388,000.[2] Given that the parent is in part to blame for failing to control the child’s behaviour, in the time during which the parent is the primary custodian of the child, it is fair to pass on a measure of this cost to the parent.  [1] Batten, George, ‘The Main Cause of School Budget Problems is School Discipline’, School Discipline Made Easy, http://www.schooldisciplinemadeeasy.com/?p=42 [2] Hymel, Shelley, and Henderson, Natalie Rocke, ‘Helping Students who are Experiencing Persistent and/or Serious Discipline Problems to Succeed in School: The State of the Evidence’, Ontario Ministry of Education Research Symposium, 18-20 January 2006, http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/hymel.pdf
Individual Responsibility

The philosophy underling the proposition is one in which the child is not solely responsible for his or her own behaviour.  Even if the threats of parental punishment and involvement are successful in the short term in modifying a child’s behaviour, the long term sequlae is that the child’s good behaviour is predicated not on an understanding of the consequence of their behaviour and a consideration of their own long term interests, but merely out of fear and external consequences.  In the long run, instilling this message is likely to lead to future misbehaviour as the external punishments, in this case imposed on the parents, fall away.  Once the child reaches an age at which the parents cannot be punished or the child does not care about parental punishment, building an ethic around such external consequences will fail to deter the child from misbehaviour.  (See argument 4)
Unjust

There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is simply unjust.  The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane individual is fully responsible for his or her actions.  One can always point to dysfunctional families or other influences that may have had an effect on an individual’s actions, but the level of influence is impossible to quantify.  Therefore, any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched proportionally to actions taken by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the principle of proportional punishment.  As a result, any just system of punishment is bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not consistent with our principles. This argument functions best in the criminal justice context, but applies in the school context as well.  Schools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its efficacy (which is disputed in the first argument and later on) the policy should not be adopted.
Children should not be designed to specifications

Parents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make-up of their family. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved. Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. 'All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' 1. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights. 1. Meek, J. (2001, July 5). Baby Blues. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/jul/05/genetics improve this
The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with

It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla Miller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing God, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fixed that. Were they playing God?' 1. Moreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.). Why not extend that ability to plan? Moreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml improve this
Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide

Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status.
The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies

Gender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness. improve this
Parents should have freedom of choice

People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2.  1. U.N. General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml<br> 2. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62067-2004Dec13.html improve this
Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided

Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3. 1. Macnair, D. T. (2010, August). Fragile X Syndrome. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC Health: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/fragilex1.shtml 2. Doe, J. (2000, December 18). Immune System Disorders. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Time: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,92261,00.html 3. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute: http://www.microsort.net/results.php improve this