BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Without the licence fee the BBC would produce less educational material

If the BBC was forced to compete commercially the programmes which attract a smaller audience share would be cancelled. This sounds like good business sense, but from a public service sense would be a real loss. The BBC has always had a commitment to producing high quality educational programming and programmes that cater to minorities, and it can only do so because it is not dependant on viewing figures. Though not as many people watch the OU programmes, for example, those that do can find them incredibly valuable. There's a lot of entertainment on TV, which is a good thing, but we shouldn't turn away from programmes that help us learn. For those who can't afford university or don't know where to start when confronted by a million reference books, a half-hour guide to an otherwise inaccessible subject can be a great starting point.
It is un-fair because...

a) What's with the little c in the first BBC!!!!! Get your grammar right!!!! b) The licence fee pays not just for TV it also pays for radio, online and digital switchover. In fact only 69% of your licence fee goes on TV. c) The BBC makes some quality programs such as country file and songs of praise, which I think we all watch. d) The licence fee in 2008/2009 amounted to only 39p a day which is well worth it. e) BBC Worldwide isn't completely paid for by the licence fee it is also funded by adverts. It also makes it possible for you, yes you, to watch amazing BBC programs overseas. f) It could be worse you, yes I'm still talking to you, could live in Austria, which is a very nice place full of mountains, goats, that women off the sound of music and stuff, where the licence fee is £232.84 and they have adverts. g) You spelt service wrong!!! h) If Jesus was still with us he would have paid the licence fee and he wouldn't have complained about it. He was cool like that.
TV or Internet

Firstly the question appears to me to be "is this a fair method?". Alot of people have answered YES who are, from their comments, obviously against tv licensing. I have to say no it is not a fair method. But it can be avoided simply by not having a TV. To me it seems all this tax is doing is forcing people to decide between tv and the net (ok, or paying for both. but thats just silly imo!) A decade ago I would have said tv, but these days I have to say I prefere the net. For those that argue that tv is a good learning tool (?) the net is a much more versatile, comprehensive and interactive learning tool. As far as entertainment goes, these same qualities make the net, for me, a much more enjoyable entertainment experience. If you're reading this you must agree with that to some extent! At the end of the day the only certainties in life are death and taxes.
everyone has a right to choice!

Its true everyone does have a right to choose so if you don't like it don't have a tv! If you don't own tv and thefore do not have a license this would of course be unfair to those wh do as the bbc offer much more than eastenders. They offer educational opportunities to young talentin many different fields as well as funding many programs that you or yur children learnt from in schools. If these things were taken away people would get upset then too. Unfortunately we live in a world where nothing is free but no one wants to pay. I am sorry to disagree with you but your argument misses one point: it is not a matter of choosing or not to have a TV, but choosing or not to watch a certain program! The fact that BBC runs educational programs cannot be an argument in a democratic world, that I have to pay a compulsory fee for their functioning.
Fair Tax

Although there may be many arguments contradicting the point’s I’m about to make, and many of the common public disagree with such a tax, but then again, what taxes don’t they moan about. they are happy to sit at home claiming benefits watching the BBC living off tax payers money but when it comes to giving something back where are they?, the fact is that, this corrupt lower class country will always find a way to moan about anything, scrap the tax and they will only moan about advertisement, advertising via signs is not enough, and some form of tax would have to be done, or advertisement will have to take a full campaign to fund such an expensive channel. Either way we’re in a losing battle of complaints, the TV companies and the government are trying to win our country over by having a bit of both with adverts on some channels and having BBC without adverts. Even with this people will still complain so what can we do to try and get a better TV viewing world. Please someone tell me how it is possible to get past such a stage without upsetting either side of such an argument.
tvlicence

hmmm and where would you expect the money to come from to fund all of the services we get from paying the licensing fee? Without a TV licence we'd have advertising on all BBC channels and radio stations which i for one would fucking detest. If you don't like paying the licence don't watch TV! Or just stream it off the internet, otherwise, shut up or expect to pay taxes elsewhere to fund the same thing! http://www.onebillionpageviews.org
Fantastic value for money

If you don't want to watch it, but must nonetheless pay for it, it cannot be described as fantastic value. 40p a day isn't that good anyway. That's about £12 a month. Sky costs £20 - £30 a month, but they throw in broadband and free calls. It's not bad, but it isn't fantastic. Further, the reason why so many of our shows are American imports is probably because they are better shows. Which is probably because there isn't a state tv monopoly in America.
Without the licence fee the BBC would produce less educational material

Although programmes which attract a smaller audience may be cancelled, if the BBC was forced to compete comericially, it is highly likely that competitors would provide these programmes for the public. So the programmes would not be lost altogether, because competitors would provide them. In all honesty the majority of BBC programmes aren't that educational for the majority of the British audience. The supposedly informative cooking programmes usually use ingredients which are far out of the pricing range of a working class family (already paying a high license fee), and because there are so many of them now, they compete with each other for viewers. For example Jimmy's food farm, in which Jimmy on one occasion uses a potato launcher and a tennis raquet. I'm not 100% certain, but the majority of households in the UK do not own a Potato launcher and do not use a tennis raquet in the kitchen -so this programme cannot be educational. And to use a TV programme as a basis of knowledge on a subject is moronic.
Un-Fair TAX

It is unfair to tax every household within the UK to fund an organisation such as the BBC, simply because in todays world of technology there are better ways. It is un-fair because... a) The people who dont wish to watch the BBc have to pay for it. b)if a person already subscibes to cable or satalite then they pay twice for the service. c) in many country's outside the UK they receive the or some of the services of the BBC freee of charge. d) No other service in the Uk is allowed to get away with blanket charges to every household whether or not consumers use their sevice!
The UK's TV Tax has no place in the Digital Age

Let's be clear.The TV licence fee is in essence a tax like any other and not simply a fee paid for a service. Like other taxes it is in effect compulsory. Unlike other more mainstream taxes it is increasingly difficult to justify. It belongs in the 20th not the 21st century. At the beginning of the Age of Broadcasting there was obvious merit in publicly funding a new mass media technology.This is what public funding is for : collective provision of a " public good" which would otherwise not be available to anyone or available only on the basis of individual ability to pay and therefore enjoyed by a minority only.Thus the BBC was originally conceived as a national broadcaster in an age where there was virtually no private sector competition. It was also importantly not only intended to be a "public service" but one that would provide inform and educate the British public with high quality output untainted by crass commercialism. But where are we now ? What unique content does the BBC provide ? Indeed what is so special about the BBC in 2009 that merits its entitlement to a guaranteed income irrespective of who or how many consumes its "service". Whilst the Beeb remains a part of the public sector it is hardly "frontline" and not quite the same emptying the bins or public health provision.Yet many of the arguments deployed in "defence" of the genuinely frontline services are routinely deployed in justifying its existence. A cynic might see a touch of self interest in some of those arguments. In reality the BBC has been providing the same sort of programming that ITV and the other broadcast media. Given that - all that is left is public sector inertia and vested interest.
It is un-fair because...

a) The people who dont wish to watch the BBc have to pay for it. b)if a person already subscibes to cable or satalite then they pay twice for the service. c) in many country's outside the UK they receive the or some of the services of the BBC freee of charge. d) No other service in the Uk is allowed to get away with blanket charges to every household whether or not consumers use their sevice!
Fair Tax

Unfair Tax. If I want to watch SKY I need to setup a payment method or I wont get decrypt key. If I leave my property outside on the street, I can expect someone to take it without paying. The BBC can encrypt all BBC Channels thus protecting their IP, this technology exists to prevent people watching channels without paying. They choose to openly broadcast without putting this technology in place, surely the argument in any Court Case would be to say they are negligent in applying modern day technology. This is a carpet tax designed to raise revenue from Tax Payers. Its about time this was challenged in UK Courts and if needs be in the European Court. I choose not to watch BBC but I still have to pay for SKY and BBC License. BBC GET IT SORTED AND STOP SCAMMING THE PUBIC.
tvlicence

This is not a fair method, the licence fee is a form of hypothecated tax meaning the money raised is used for that one purpose only. Maybe you are rich and don't mind paying the ever increasing £139.50 to watch ever so long tedious amounts of drivvle that the bbc accommodates. this regressive tax which is irrelevant to the amount of money that somebody earns , is simply unfair on the poor. They may well be only using 1 tv under their roof compared to someone who earns a fortune pays the same licence fee, but had 7 tv's in their houshold. This form of funding used by the BBC at present may well accomodate you in not wanting to watch or listen to advertisments, however for people who are struggling to pay the licence fee on top other sky expenses for example, the advertisements that are shown on ITV are simply not an issue. What services are you refering to when you say our tax funds 'all the services we got from paying the licensing fee'?,because as far as I am concerned I can get educational tv programs from the sky channels i pay for at present, and they are a hell of a lot better than the short educational programs the bbc airs.
Guilty of TV licence fraud until proven innocent of not owning a TV

The Tv licence is unlike every other licence. If you do not have a TV and hence no licence then you get hassle from the Tv licensing authorities. They can call round without giving advance notice , at times that are very inconvenient . For example in the evening when one is going out . One is treated as if one is dishonest I don't own a car or a driving license either , but the DVLA does not knock on my door asking to check whether I own a car . they just assume that no vehicle license means no car and that people are honest .. The TV license is also unfair on single people, it is one license per household , not one per person . There is no allowance for level of usage either. if one uses less electricity because one lives alone then one pays less . A single person , say they were a lot younger than me for example they were twenty years old, and watched one hour of TV per week would pay the same for a Tv license as a family of six people who watch twenty hours per week and had two TVs . However if a single person got rid of their Tv then they would get hassle , so they are trapped . Is this fair ?
They offer a service which everyone uses

Many people argue that it's unfair because it's compulsory to pay, but ask yourself how often you either watch a BBC programme, listen to a radio show funded by the BBC or take part in an event funded by the BBC. Whether people realise it or not, the BBC stretches our money far further than it would otherwise go. You may say, "well the other channels offer the same sorts of services but don't charge anything". Well, this may be right on one level, but ask yourself whether you really want to spend a quarter of your time watching adverts. Also, do you really want to be watching programmes which are designed to make more money out of us, through competitions and phone-in services? The BBC also offer unbiased news available through interactive services, online and through the news channel. The BBC makes up-to-date information available to all of us in one way or another, and their motives - because they have the money and therefore have no need to make any more out of us - lie purely in that they want to give us the best service available. They also offer free events and festivals to allow the public to truely appreciate entertainment. Recent events include the Big Weekend and the various radio shows that audiences can go to for free. They pay their employees fair wages out of the money they receive, as they believe everyone deserves to be paid fairly. They offer an incredibly large range of work experience places, making sure that as many people as possible can realise the enjoyment behind entertainment. So ask yourself this; if the BBC didn't charge us for these services, would you really want another advertisement-filled, biased television station, radio channels, website and events you had to pay for?
Many teens 16 years of age show a high maturity and academic level

Many 16 year old teenagers do not act mature, they are extremely childish and boisterous. For the few that act sensible their is a torrent of them that liberally participate in the act of under-age drinking in the attempt to act mature. Maturity is not found in a pint of beer. Walk into a town or city that has a college nearby and you will often see packs of teens strolling around being childish and loud. 16 year old's simply act too immature for the simple reason that they are immature, they have just left school. By all means let them humour themselves with their prattle and little debates but at the end of the day 18 is the legal age for most things and even then a lot of people still can't grasp the concept of maturity. <<< Then theres the group of 16 year olds that ruin it for the rest of them. You realize that stores do a bad job checking IDs as it is, now they have to check IDs, Report Cards and Proof of Maturity?
We are just the same as someone only two years older

" ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL" younger doesnt mean they are adult,and older is doesnt mean that they are adult. but what can i say someone adult by their age is EXPERIENCE. the 18 years old and the 16 years old has difference in experience, thats why more getting your age up,more experience you had, when you solve your problem you just have one way to solve it in 16th but you have many ways in 18th to solve your problem. furthermore, ALL MEN CREATED EQUAL is the other philosophical proverb for the other problem not for the age. <<< all MEN are created equal. Not boys :P But in all seriousness, with your thought process you're saying we should allow 7 year olds to smoke cigs, drink whiskey and drive cars to school. Equality for the masses!
If we act like adults, we should be treated as adults

Maturity should firstly be defined. Maturity in regards to aging is a natural process, which everyone hopefully endures. However, maturity is also the development of the mind. Minds differ and decisions in regards to each individual life differ. Legality cannot be measured via maturity, thusly the age of majority should not be in existence. As it is, it is flawed, though. Lowering the age to 16 would not be beneficial legally and would cause difficulties in the current system. <<< A sign of maturity is to see a problem for the whole thing and not just the small part that upsets you. The whole picture here is a process. What do 18 year olds get to do that 16 year olds can not? Well, for one, they can gamble. They can also buy cigs. Cool, so you want to do one of those? Well any adult 18+ has to go through a process of getting their ID checked for legal age. With what your suggesting there would need to be some kind of way to identify maturity. The only way i can think of is to have a Maturity Test and give people Maturity Cards. The biggest problem is that one might know what is mature but doesn't follow it. Therefore, they could pass the test but doesn't mean they obey what thew wrote off on. Or if its an adult that goes somewhere to say "yes my kid is mature"... well i bet 80% of immature children would have parents who write them off as mature anyways. And now we're also asking stores (that seem to have problems asking for ID) requiring to ask for Maturity Cards. The whole process is beyond faulty, easy to scam and just more complicated than what its worth. Big deal, you have to wait two more years to buy cigs which you can't smoke in school and need a job to support you unhealthy habbit. Or you have to wait 2 years to blow all the petty cash you're making at your min. wage job at a casino. All to create a complicated, easily corrupted system? This does not make sense
We are smart enough to make good decisions

We may have learned more stuff, but there is also more to learn. How book smart you are has nothing to do with how street smart you are. As a 16 year old myself, I find that I need my parents support and guidance, without it I would never get anything done. I think 18 is a fine legal age. <<< If you consider yourself smart you would look at the whole process that you're corrupting, making it easily scammable and asking for ways to throw away the small cash you make from your minimum wage job OR throwing away your parents money. Its not worth it
Well...

No. The thing is, when a teenager is convinced that he/she knows better than mommy and daddy, that teenager then becomes rebellious against his/her parents. This rebellion is an integral part of the process of growing up. There are certainly some mature and intelligent teenagers, but they are so few and far between that they represent such a small percentage of the population that their presence should be disregarded on this specific topic. Maturity is something that is "grown in to" (pardon the irritating pun) and experienced, not simply handed to a teenager who wants to be an adult. As a teenager, one is not actually ready to face the consequences of choices that he/she makes. And yes, it may feel like your parents are "pushing you around," but believe it or not, this is an advantage. At this point in a person's life, consequences are much lighter than they become when one becomes an adult. Another point is that teenagers are not accustomed to making permanent, life-changing decisions, thus leading to the fact that the teenager, when presented with a moment of extreme choice, will not be able to choose wisely. In closing, I would like to say that teenagers should enjoy their teen years while they can. It's a temporary time of living with those who will care for you.
The test for whether beings should enjoy moral significance is their capacity to feel pain. Animals...

The test for whether beings should enjoy moral significance is their capacity to feel pain. Animals react in a way consistent with our understanding of what it is to be in pain - they scream and avoid the source of that pain. Research also shows that the pain sensing structures of animals’ nervous systems are similar to our own. A distinction cannot be made between animals and humans on grounds of intelligence since we don’t consider the new-born, senile or mentally impaired to be non-human. Therefore, both humans and animals should enjoy equal moral consideration. Any attempt to distinguish between animals and people is ‘speciesism’. To say that animals deserve less consideration simply because they are animals is analogous to claiming that women deserve inferior treatment by virtue of their sex. 'The question is not, Can animals reason? Nor, Can they talk? But can they suffer' (Vicki Hearn, What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?)
Blood sports are cruel since the suffering caused can be unnecessary and prolonged, especially in th...

Blood sports are cruel since the suffering caused can be unnecessary and prolonged, especially in the case of hunting with dogs, where death comes only after an exhausting chase and may involve the animal being ripped apart by the hounds. Even when the animals are ultimately shot, they are seldom despatched by an expert, trained marksman, so they may not be killed immediately, but wounded and left to die very slowly from their injuries.
Another moral objection is that people take pleasure in the process of often-pointless killing. Man...

Another moral objection is that people take pleasure in the process of often-pointless killing. Man has moved well beyond his natural state of being a hunter-gatherer and needing to hunt for food. There is something perverse about breeding animals, or managing the land to encourage them, just so they can be shot. Bear- and badger-baiting and cock-fighting have been banned already and it the abolition of other blood sports is well overdue.
Wanting to ban blood sports is not the same as rejecting the need for the culling of animals. In Br...

Wanting to ban blood sports is not the same as rejecting the need for the culling of animals. In Britain, the Burns Committee concluded that investing money in better nutrition for ewes rather than in killing foxes would save more livestock. Technology provides more humane ways of killing, (e.g. trapping and lamping), whilst also allowing devotees to test their skills against clay pigeons or in drag hunts.
An argument that highlights the economic costs of banning blood sports is analogous to arguing for t...

An argument that highlights the economic costs of banning blood sports is analogous to arguing for the continuation of slavery because slave traders might lose their livelihoods. Investigations in Britain have cast doubt on the extent of problems that a ban would cause. Overall, however, the essential point is that it is morally wrong to kill animals for pleasure and no amount of economic benefits can make that right.
The test for whether beings should enjoy moral significance is their capacity to feel pain. Animals...

Common sense tells us that there is a difference between animals and humans. In the presence of the senile or disabled we feel sorry for them because they lack the faculties that humans normally possess. We feel no such pity for animals because they lack faculties that they can never have. For example, animals cannot construct hypothetical scenarios, don’t have values and are not consciously aware. The value of animals is not only instrumental but also because they contribute to the beauty of the natural world and furthermore because of the symbiotic relationship between animals and human communities. People are the most developed of all the species and as such are in the best position to consider the interests of all of nature.