BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tax cuts lead to market stimulation

Once an economic crisis happens, people’s consumption sentiment freezes up. Becoming scared, people refuse to spend, even in areas that are safe to spend. Their natural tendency becomes to suspect and fear which leads them to ignore even the legitimate improvements that are being made and stay sluggish in stimulating the economy. Such consumer psychology is the worst enemy of an economic crisis, more than the original reason that the crisis happened, more than the huge debt the economy faces. Because, once that psychology kicks in even the most laborious and effective methods made to improve the economy, and even the actual results coming from those efforts are ignored. And because those efforts are ignored, the economy sinks into an even deeper recession which again furthers the people’s fear and suspicion. Such was the case during the Great Depression. Such is the case in the present global crisis the world is facing. Therefore freezing of consumer psychology is the number one reason that a crisis is perpetuated. Therefore it may be said that thawing the frozen purses of the public is the number one priority in recovering from any major recession. And this is why deregulation and especially tax cuts are needed. First of all such policies actually increase the amount of money that flows in to the market and into individual’s pockets. Encouraging people to spend, companies to produce and the market to move. Furthermore, once the market starts to finally move, people’s psychology starts to change and the amount of money that people spend increases disproportionately to the money actually released by tax cuts and deregulations. In economic terms this phenomenon is explained by the increase of the spending multiplier, which measures the amount of money people actually spend. Through such process the market is stimulated and the first step of a postive feedback cycle of recovery begins.
Cutting taxes, no bailouts, and selective deregulation to keep market forces alive and promote efficiency.

Opp’s has completely misunderstood our policy. All their args are directed against the gov indiscriminately abolishing all existing regulations and showering bailout loans and funds on companies. That is not what we argue for. To repeat, our stimulus package contains two items: 1) granting tax cuts, and 2) selectively lifting regulations that hinder corporate efficiency. Some regulations are meant to keep market forces alive and guarantee a reasonable level of consumer safety and environmental protection. It is illogical to argue for eliminating such regulations; those are kept in place. What we target are regulations that may help the economy during expansionary times but prove obstacles to efficiency during recession. Special licensing between companies engaged in a contract and other such certifications; market distortions like rates and prices that are set excessively low (either readjust higher or remove); & barriers of entry liks special licensing and bailouts to select firms are such. Thus Opp’s pts about working conditions and human rights violations do not hold. Deregulation will improve performance of firms. SP proved optimal with the US airline deregulation in mid 1990s. [[http://tinyurl.com/6k5o2거]] Regulated routes+competition were inefficient. With deregulation, the industry grew, creating more jobs and services, and ultimately fares became low, with consumers benefiting. What we ultimately seek is to make full use of the market forces. We do not argue for bailouts; it hurts competition. That cutting taxes and giving bailouts is unfeasible is an undue criticism. Our arg is a bottom-up approach that utilize the nature of firms to strive for profit maximization. This will not only stabilize the economy, but stimulate the supply sector to allow overall expansion—a sound exit strategy. Opp’s said companies will try to “get more profit, the cheapest and easiest way. Yes, that is exactly why we’re entrusting recovery to firms.
Deregulation Fuels Corporations to Behave Unethically, Devastating Human Rights and the Environment

The opposition seems to have misunderstood both the concept of deregulation and way in which we hope to implement such into our recovery plan. First of all, deregulation does not mean in any way, “giving corps large amounts of money”. If anything, such government action would fall under intervention, not deregulation. Deregulation involves reducing or eliminating government control of the operation of market forces. Bail-outs, government loans are not forms of deregulation. Moreover, the opposition has wrongly accused our plan as one with “zero ethical constraints”. However, as specifically stated, our stimulus package involves letting businesses to be “exempt from a CERTAIN amount of tax and free from CERTAIN government regulations”. This does not mean our policies are to rid of all taxes and regulations intended to bind businesses for social purposes. This means to make changes (some cases in which may be temporary) in policy regarding business either by broadening the definition or interpretation, eliminating minor market barriers, easing requirements or surveillance, or temporarily suspending certain regulations or tax requirements. This by no means is to be interpreted as the complete ‘laissez-faire’-ification of the economy as the opposition seems to understand. The opposition has continuously referred to cases such as deregulation in regard to labor laws and human rights. The proposition’s conception of deregulation neither means to do as suggested nor necessarily regards such extreme assumptions. For example, deregulation can mean policy reformation in regard to cross-border rule harmonization. Often different countries and states have their own domestic requirements of certification or qualification meant as a pro-domestic/local barrier of entry. Simplifying or unifying such international/interstate regulations effectively opens markets for entry, fostering growth and competition. Other methods include reducing tariffs and other govt fees
Efficiency

A govt is a body set up for the good of the people of that state. Thus, it is fair to define the role of a govt as taking care of businesses and the state of the economy in its nation, because ultimately, these factors all affect the citizens. Having established what the govt’s job is, we can see what its role would be in a case of an economic crisis: help out businesses and corporations. The main flaw of the prop is that it greatly overestimates the abilities and capabilities of corps. The so called “unnecessary” steps that govts take in order to make decisions are in fact crucial in rational decision making. The global recession we have been in for over 8 years is not going to be solved quickly, and the “agility” of corps is not what we need in order to get out of it. If the prop believes govts are “better safe than sorry,” which we don’t think is a vice, we can see that corps are “better sorry than safe.” It is quite ironic how the prop has accused the govts of being “anxious of public criticism” while the very existence of corps depends on public perception. It is also ironic that the prop is making the claim that businesses are specialized, when the govt is designed to specialize in things to address issues. The US Department of Commerce has a branch (Bureau of Economic Analysis) that is specifically devotedto solving economic problems. On the other hand, corporate specialists focus purely on profit, and not necessarily in leading a nation out of a recession. The “past failures” of corps are acknowledged in the prop argument. The govt should be there to guide corps to avoid the same “slip”, which affected so many lives. We don’t believe that the govt has superpowers, but completely trusting corps to get out of a situation they haven’t been able to for 8 years is irrational and completely idealistic. After all, the job of a govt is to help its state in times of need.
Government Intervention is Necessary for the Protection of Workers and Citizens

Opp sees providing stable employment will significantly benefit the economy which can be achieved by govt’s regulation in businesses. Especially with the current economic crisis, people have constant fear of being unemployed. This fear of unemployment results in hesitance in their consumer spending thus harms the economy by limiting the amount of money being circulated. With gov’t regulations such as min wage policy and bailouts on corps, opp sees that this will bring down the instability of employment and abuse of labor rights in status quo and also result in wage consistency for the employees. Once employment and wage are regulated thus stabilized, we can easily presume that more money will be spent by consumers, and fuel the economy that is currently predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of economic growth in US for instance. [[http://goo.gl/JmYOE]] Govt regulations play a crucial role to protect workers and consumers. It is due to govt interventions that laws prohibiting discrimination upon age, sex, race; right to unionize; enforcement of workplace safety exist. Every product sold in the US, for example, is affected by some kind of government regulation: food manufacturers must tell exactly what is in the product; automobiles must be built according to safety standards and pollution standards; prices for goods must be clearly marked; and advertisers cannot mislead consumers. [[http://goo.gl/BzV2B]] Govts need to consider the impact of corp’s actions upon society and monitor and control activities that are against the public interest. Thru intervention of the govt, like investment in infrastructure project, capital intensive projects and innovative projects, opp hopes to generate employment, increase spending and helped economy to bail out of recession. In all, opp can easily conclude that government intervention is necessary for economical stability and regulation of monopolies.
Stimulating businesses through tax-cuts and deregulation will be engine for economic recovery.

What prop misunderstood is that giving corps large amounts of money will not necessarily be effective in stimulating the economy. Even if they get more money, they usually take advantage of it because the larger these businesses are, the more inclined to corruption and unethical practices they become. The bigger corporations are, the harder it is to detect corruption. Corps, with the money they receive, abuse employees—who are politically and economically vulnerable in countries—to exploit them to get more profit, the cheapest and easiest way. Especially in a situation with less regulation and tax cuts are going to be actuated, more corps will seek chances to exploit their workers, manipulate their investments, and go against human rights, which will be further mentioned in contention 2. Also, the investment and financial resources, which would be in the hands of big corps, does not fall to the hands of workers or citizens. On top of this, when govts can no longer control both big and small corporations, the exploitation and abuse for workers will increase. Regulations and big govts usually keep an eye on the companies and make sure that they have standards on employment and practices. The IRTUMG reports that workers “have been complaining… about the deterioration in working conditions … particularly with regard to the payment of the minimum wage.” For years, companies were “in a flat refusal to comply with the laws of the country and the most fundamental workers’ rights, COBIGUA-CHIQUITA has insinuated that it will close down the plantations if its employees do not continue working, thereby totally violating their labor and trade union rights.”1 Just as this, less regulations and tax cuts basically give more power and authority to the corps so that they would manipulate the power. Even prop knows ‘the government's priorities lie with getting the economy back to stabilized growth as effectively and efficiently as possible.’ 1- http://goo.gl/KR
An Examination of Today's World Proves Government Regulation is Essential.

Unfortunately, corporations right now, whether they are small or big, aren’t as well-off or controlled as prop thinks. Giant corps are finding more and more ways to take advantage of deregulations to walk further into the path of corruption. For instance, Samsung’s chairman Lee Kun-hee and his loyal aides were accused of having stolen as much as 10 trillion won, or $9 billion, from Samsung subsidiaries and stashed it in stocks and bank accounts illegally opened in the names of executives. (http://goo.gl/P94vI) Another example is Walmart. Walmart experienced massive union creations in 2004 at Quebec because countless workers were “dissatisfied with their pay and working conditions.” Eventually, the store shutdown on Feb.9, devastating 190 workers; drawing out tears. Jean Tremblay, the mayor of Saguenay, gave interviews expressing his anger. " ‘Because you are big and rich and strong, you can close a store to make your workers in other stores afraid? No!’ Tremblay said. He discussed Walmart’s corrupt state and its need to change policies.[http://goo.gl/P7cwk]. The solution is pretty straightforward: make governments regulate corporations. Germany for example, understands this fairly obvious solution and voted in favor of supporting a more powerful fund to bail-out troubled Eurozone economies. [http://goo.gl/B3rYP] As Europe’s largest economy, Germany’s commitment to the fund would rise from 123bn euros to 211bn. In contrary to its neighbours, Germany’s GDP rose by 3.6% in 2010. [http://goo.gl/H3iEL] Not only are regulations such as bailouts effective in boosting the economies of a country, the regulations can prevent corps from going money-blind and corrupt. Conclusively, the world the opposition examines obviously requires full intervention by the governments to ensure the legality and effectiveness of corporations.
Negative impact on the environment

The natural consequence of lower speed limits is longer journey times. Longer journey times means more time spent in the car to cover the same distance. This will increase the output of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere for every single journey. The plight of modern times is supposed to be the reduction, not the increase of carbon emissions. The optimum driving speed is between 50 and 60mph[[W.H. West, FuelEconomy, 2001]], this is the most efficient driving speed to save petrol and reduce noxious emissions. There are more miles per litre of petrol when driving at this speed and so the Government should not seek to reduce the speed below this level.
Government have illegitimate reasons behind lowering the speed limit

The Government Road Safety department are indirectly funded by the undertakings that manufacture speed cameras and other speed reducing instruments[[Brian Gregory, The Times Online, April 2009]]. To continue to receive the funds of that undertaking, the Government has a vested interest in lowering speed limits so that local councils will buy the speed enforcement products. Ergo, whilst the Government are sending out propaganda regarding deaths caused by speeding, their real motivation is the financial incentive.
Reducing speed reduces deaths

It is the logical conclusion that an unbiased person would take, that if drivers do not drive as fast, they will be more aware of their surroundings, be more in control of their car, and will have a shorter breaking distance. Not only will this reduce accidents, but it will reduce the impact of any accidents that may occur. Their is more force behind a faster car and so more crushing power - be that the crushing of the car in front or the crushing of a child's bones as they stepped onto the road.
Increase in motorcyclists

There has been a significant increase in motorcyclists in recent times and the credit crunch has meant that whilst car registrations dropped 8.8% motorcyclists only dropped 1.5%[[Erin Baker, Telegraph, November 2008]]. Given the increase in numbers expected after the economic downturn, motorbikes should be catered for on our roads. Cars driving fast are less likely to see a motorcyclist pull out and will be less likely to perform the emergency break efficiently. The increase in motorcyclists has to promote change in the way we use our roads. Given that motorbikes are the more efficient and environmentally friendly mode of travel, we should promote people to learn to drive a motorbike rather than cars. Such promotion will not succeed if the roads are unsafe for motorcyclists.
High tax on cars is not value for money if you have to drive at a snail's pace

It is unbelievable that tax keeps rising on cars when the actions that you can take with your car are being reduced. If such action of the government continues people will stop driving and the government will lower their own income via such taxes. The oil industry that is so powerful will me made so weak through lack of consumers that we will have yet another credit crunch on our hands. People pay to drive so they can get from A to B in a relatively short space of time, reducing speed limits and raising taxes are not compatible. << The government reducing people from driving would actually hurt the government in more ways than 1. First would be the taxes from gas, the next is the taxes from cars. Then theres all the taxes people pay (in some states) on parts and extras and all these after-market additions to their cars. This would also cause more and more unemployment as people lose modes of transportation, limiting their ability to get jobs which lowers the amount of money lining in the governments pocket from income taxes. Why would the government raise taxes to reduce the amount of money they make?
Government detracting from lack of money to spend on roads

The blame is always with the public and never with the public authorities. The public should lower their speed, the public should be the scapegoat for road accidents. but this is simply not the case. If the Government were to spend more money on the condition of our roads and more money on providing underpasses for pedestrians then road safety would not be such a big issue. A parish council in Essex were even considering deliberately leaving pothole unfilled in order to make people reduce their speed[[BBC, BBC News, April 2009]]! This is not a safety measure, this is a way of saving money for the Government Minister's luxury pads. -------- Not so sound like a complete careless person, because i do sympathize for you and your family for the loss, but honestly, if you live so close to a highway, why would you let a 2 year old go play in the streets? (knowing that cars don't slow down). I'd also like to state that all highways I have seen always have a stop sign or set of lights when you just get off the highway, and prior to these stop signals (around the entry of the exit) theres a sign that says "Ramp 30 MPH" or whatever speed is deemed best. And another thing is that you said it yourself, these people were speeding. Reducing the speed limit isn't going to stop speeding from happening. It'll just exist even more.
Speed restrictions cause accidents.

As discussed above, reduction in speed equal longer journey times. Longer journey times will make drivers more susceptible to being tired during their journey. Drivers will find it boring travelling at mundane speed levels and so their level of attention will drop and they could potentially slip into a slumber at the wheel. This will increase accidents. Another problem is that accidents are often caused by people slowing down in order not to be caught speeding. Such fluctuating levels of speed is dangers and unpredictable, not only for pedestrians but also for other drivers. Lowering the speed limit will thus not serve any purpose than to create more potential accidents.
Blame the pedestrians.

60% of pedestrian road accidents are the fault of the pedestrian themselves[[Brian Gregory, Times Online, April 2009]]. If this is the case surely the answer to solving the problems is to educate pedestrians on how to safely cross a road and not to reduce the speed of innocent drivers. Children should be taught in school and by their parents about the Green Cross Code and they should not be allowed to cross roads if they do not have the maturity to follow these codes. ^ True statement.
Reducing speed reduces deaths

This argument is based on Government adverts, and is no way backed by statistical evidence. It is in fact the very fast AND the very slow drivers that cause accidents. Those who drive in the 80th to 90 percentile are the safest drivers[[Brian Gregory, The Times Online, April 2009]]. This shows that instead of attacking that safe percentile, the slow and the extremely fast should be penalised. Harsher enforcement of very fast drivers, and slow drivers should also be apprehended. Therefore, instead of reducing the speed limit to below that safe percentile, why not ensure those who are very fast and very slow keep to the current speed limits. Spending limited resources in this area will see a greater degree of road safety. ---------------------- << This is saying that people obey the speed limit, which they do not.
Increase in motorcyclists

You can not transport large things on motorcycles, nor can you ride them comfortable in the snow or rain. Motorcycles are very weather dependent vehicles that allow little to no carry on items. They also only allow a small amount of people to ride them as compared to a honda civic which means the transportation of 4 people in a civic is better for the economy as compared to multiple motor cycles. Regardless, a lot of motorcycles i see on the highway swerve in and out of traffic, drive between lanes when the traffic is stopped and drive faster than any car i've personally seen on the highway. Motorcycle accident probably occur more often due to the careless, wreckless acts of the person driving his motorcycle and not so much the cars around them.
Government detracting from lack of money to spend on roads

why i think that the speed limits should be reduced, becuase yeah, i've lost a loved one..even tho i did not know him. he was my uncle, and he was two. he crossed the street without his mom [my grandma] and they live on a road, where your just getting off the high way. so there isnt a sign saying to slow down your speed now is there? yes i may live in Michigan, and this happened in Ohio. but big deal. he was my uncle that i never got to meet. my mom never go to meet, neither did one on my aunts. so maybe if the speed limits were just a little reduced. maybe people like my grandma wouldnt have to loose a love one. Mostly Her Own Child.
Democratically, yes

"Get a second opinion, and then decide" As with Democratic processes in general,the workings of Google and their search result placements are not born in entirety out of a true democracy (or the voice of ze people). Companies can/do rent the top slot for relevant search results for limited periods of time. So the top result for many searches may not be the one that most people rely on but rather the one that is paid for the most. Add to that, the fact that while certain philosophies dub 'truth' as ideas most people will buy, truth by definition 'is what actually is' or an ontological reality and not what is perceived to be true by most people; then conclusively we are made to understand that the scientific approach to finding reliable/credible data is to be skeptical and derive truth from a variety of resources.
Democratically, yes

Since most people rely on Google almost every day or daily, it is understood that we trust Google to give us the answers we need more than any other info-source. By the philosophical understanding that truth, in the general sense is what is considered to be true by most people, Google does deliver the truth of our zeitgeist. This is compatible with how search results appear on Google, the more hits a website/page/blog gets the higher its standing on the results page. The more reliable and relevant 'people' consider results to be, the more likely it is for us/them to see them after typing in search entries. [[http://goo.gl/bE9OX]]