BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racialised Opposition

Some critics of ‘The Spear’ have criticised the artwork on the grounds that it ‘dehumanises’ black people in general[1] and President Zuma in particular and criticises him based upon his personal life rather than policy, using vulgar means to do it. This line of opposition is part of a dog-whistle tactic that the ANC has consistently used against white critics of its government in the past.[2] ANC criticisms of its white critics, including the opposition Democratic Alliance have made discreet reference to the injustices of the past as a means of creating distrust in the minds of poor, black voters who maintain ANC support as a result. Some politicians within the ANC, most notably the former President of its youth wing Julius Malema, have made incendiary statements that could be seen to stoke up hatred against whites. It is against this back drop that the double standards over criticism of Murray should be viewed. Murray, a white artist, has been criticised roundly for ‘The Spear’, while black artists have created works that could be seen to denigrate President Zuma in a similar manner to ‘The Spear’. A noticeable example is ‘Ngcono ihlwempu kunesibhanxo sesityebi’ (Better a fool than a rich man’s nonsense) by Ayanda Mabulu, that carried a much more graphic depiction of the President and other leading politicians of the past and present with barely a murmur raised.[3] By bowing to the pressure exerted by the ANC and its followers, the Goodman Gallery and City Press have bowed to pressure, denying criticism of the government and accepting the implied view that White South Africans are unable to criticise the government without seeking to re-assert any forms of superiority that had existed under Apartheid. Whilst there may still be underlying problems of Far-Right activity in South Africa, to smear anyone who criticises the government based on their race does nothing to help move the country on from autocracy and institutionalised racism. The Goodman Gallery and City Press should have stood by displaying the image as it represented the opinion of Brett Murray, free from intimidation or race based slander. [1] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012, http://mg.co.za/article/2012-06-12-simphiwe-dana-on-the-sarah-baartmanisation-of-the-black-body [2] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The ANC's best friend: Brett Murray & The Spear’, Amandla, http://www.amandlapublishers.co.za/special-features/the-spear-and-freedom-of-expression/1283-the-ancs-best-friend-brett-murray-a-the-spear--by-sipho-hlongwane [3] Ndlovu, Andile, ‘'Spear' sparks hot Twitter debate’, Times Live, 23 May 2012, http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/05/23/spear-sparks-hot-twitter-debate
Defamation

While South African Law does allow for freedom of speech, and the constitution is one of the most liberal in the world for protecting such freedoms, it must be measured against the need for responsibility in the use of such freedoms to prevent offence. Whatever one believes about ‘The Spear’ it is clear that Murray attacked President Zuma based upon his personal life rather than any critique of policy. The depiction of the President with his penis exposed is a reminder of the accusations of rape against him, of which he was acquitted in 2007. To remind those who view the painting of the accusation is to hint at Zuma’s guilt in the case despite it being proved otherwise in a court of law. This is effectively libel and as such defames Zuma’s character. As such, Zuma was right to sue for defamation and it was right for the artwork to be removed as it implied and spread a falsehood in the public domain that is damaging to Zuma.
Infantilisation and Prejudice

Those who dismiss the reaction to ‘The Spear’ forget the historical context which may trigger the sorts of responses seen to the artwork.[1] South Africa’s past problems can be seen to derive from the gross caricaturing of Black people and Black Men in particular as lascivious, overtly sexual and threatening, playing into a narrative of Blacks as ‘inferior beings’ justifying inhumane treatment over a number of centuries. Portraying the President with his genitals exposed could also be seen to pass negative comment upon his polygamy, which is permitted in his Zulu culture. Such comment upon something which can determine social standing can also be viewed as offensive by many, triggering such reactions.[2] With this in mind then the right action for both The Goodman Gallery and City Press to take would be to remove such offensive art to avoid any hurt caused and to quell the protest which were borne out of genuine offence, not political grandstanding as opposition seem to imply.   [1] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The Spear: Millions of people were insulted’, Daily Maverick, 28 May 2012, http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-05-28-the-spear-millions-of-people-were-insulted [2] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012, http://mg.co.za/article/2012-06-12-simphiwe-dana-on-the-sarah-baartmanisation-of-the-black-body
A lot of undocumented workers are already in the US

According to data from Department of homeland security most of the people who are here illegally arrive here legally and then overstay their visa. Over 400,000 people whose Visas expired in 2015 were still living in the country in 2016. That's about the same as the number of people who cross the southern border every year (328,00 - 479,00). The wall would do nothing to the people that are already here.
Cartels can maneuver past checkpoints

The current 650 miles of wall has done nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Cartels heavily study checkpoints and find their weaknesses and exploit them. Checkpoint officers can also be corrupted and/or ineffective. Most drugs also come through ports of entry, not the border according to the Institute for Policy Studies. Drugs is the biggest danger that comes from the free flow between the borders, yet a wall would not effectively stop the flow of drugs. If it does not stop the bringing of drugs into the US then the wall does not fulfill its purpose.
Bribery is sometimes necessary for survival

"Survival" corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhaps in highly inflationary economies, which do not allow them to make a living. Such as with the junior police officers mentioned in the previous point. Without bribery, public administration would collapse altogether as no one would have any incentive to get anything done. Thus the level of corruption is determined by the poor economic situation of the country as well as by the policy of the government.
Bribery is sometimes the cost of doing business

Bribery is often inevitable for foreign companies that invest in those countries, where corruption is widespread and the conditions for business development are unfavourable. In Russia IKEA, the Swedish furniture company, was asked to pay bribes to get electricity for its stores and refused hiring generators instead, however the generators themselves had their price inflated, as a result IKEA suspended investment in Russia.[1] It illustrates that bribe giving is just a result of political system with weak democratic traditions. That is why many companies from developed countries, where corruption levels are low, tend to practise bribery in the developing world. [1] Kramer, Andrew E., ‘Ikea Tries to Build Public Case Against Russian Corruption’, The New York Times, 11 September 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/business/global/12ikea.html?_r=1
Bribery is only wrong under a Western-centric notion of corruption

Norms and values differ between countries. In many non-western societies gift taking and giving in the public realm is a matter of traditions and customs. Moreover, gift giving is a part of negotiations and relationship building in some parts of the world. It is hypocritical for the west to target developing countries for this as many so-called democracies are hopelessly compromised by business interests through political funding and lobbying. The United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans large bribes but allows for the payment of small ‘customary’ sums in order to ease transactions.[1] [1] The Economist, ‘When a bribe is merely facilitating business’ June 11th 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/06/anti-bribery-laws
Variation in standards leads to a ‘race to the bottom’ of corruptibility

International standards on prosecution of companies who bribe foreign officials may encourage positive changes in national legislation as well, thus eliminating legal flaws to combat corruption. Different national rules and standards for combating corruption are not sufficient in the era of global investments and international business transactions. Variation between national standards enables corruption to spread. In much the same way as companies and rich individuals make use of tax havens and places where taxes are lower and less regulated, all but two of the UK’s FTSE 100 of top companies are set up in tax havens,[1] companies wishing to hide illicit transactions may attempt to take advantage of weaker standards, wherever they are found. In India national laws have clearly not worked with relation to political parties as only one of 45 parties has provided information in response to the Right to Information act.[2] That is why international efforts to ensure the prosecution of the companies that bribe foreign officials are necessary in the current situation. [1] Provost, Claire, ‘Tax havens and the FTSE 100: the full list’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/11/ftse100-subsidiaries-tax-data [2] Times of India, ‘One out of 45 parties disclose information on sources of funding’, 20 July 2013, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-20/india/40694448_1_central-information-commission-political-parties-rti-act
The demand for bribes would end if companies stopped supplying them

The risk of corruption demand greater transparency from business. Companies have a big impact on the social environment and they have a responsibility to address it. Co-operative actions between the business sector and state institutions are essential for effective anti-corruption policy. Companies that gain a reputation for reporting officials asking for bribes will find that officials stop asking for them. In turn they need a legislative environment that protects their interests. The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials is an important step forward in this sphere.[1] [1] ‘OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’, oecd.org, 1997, http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3746,en_2649_34859_2017813_1_1_1_1,00.html
Individuals may have no choice

The position of civil society plays a key role in reducing corruption. Its action in taking a moral stand against corrupted officials is an important precondition for effective anticorruption policy. Hence, citizens who put up with the necessity to give a bribe become a part of the problem. It is not just the case of public officials abusing their positions, but of people who are tempted to choose the easiest way out. Recent developments in India show how quickly expectations can change once people begin to make a stand. Anna Hazare went on a hunger strike creating a mass movement against bribery. Now there are websites such as ipaidabribe.com popping up to shine a spotlight on corruption.[1] The change is the first step in the fight against corruption. [1] Campion, Mukti Jain, ‘Bribery in India: A website for whistleblowers’, BBC News, 6 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13616123
Bribery is sometimes the cost of doing business

The developed world also carries part of responsibility for the situation in the developing world due to its role as the bribe-payer. After all, it is largely multinational corporate interests that supply the bribe payments. They defraud the citizens of developing countries who get a less good deal as a result, as well as the interests of shareholders at home whose money is diverted into the pockets of foreign officials. This shows the necessity of treating the bribing of foreign officials as a criminal offence in companies’ home countries. It also requires the publication of all payments relating to foreign deals.
Variation in standards leads to a ‘race to the bottom’ of corruptibility

The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of corruption at the national level is high. It depends on the political will of national governments, the activities of civil society and other social conditions that exists inside the state. This explains why in many countries there has been little enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.[1] In most OECD countries the political will to prosecute major bribery cases is lacking. This explains why international efforts to combat corruption are inefficient. [1] Transparency International, ‘2008 Progress Report on Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’, 22 June 2008, http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/4th_oecd_progress_report
Individuals may have no choice

People are often made to give bribes to officials because of unfavourable economic, social or bureaucratic conditions. Officials may refuse to serve clients unless they are paid. For example in Delhi police officers regularly take lunch without paying and more senior officers take 10,000 each month to allow the restaurant to stay open late.[1] In those countries where state institutions are extremely corrupted, refusal to give a bribe may cost financial losses for business representatives or even health and liberty for citizens who need medical service and access to justice. [1] Burke, Jason, ‘Corruption in India: ‘All your life you pay for things that should be free’, guardian.co.uk, 19 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/19/corruption-india-anna-hazare
Leaving may increase British unemployment

There is considerable churn in the jobs market already; with 3.7 million jobs lost a year already but simply being replaced by new jobs.[1] Leaving the EU would therefore make little difference. [1] Bourne, Ryan, ‘The EU Jobs Myth’, Institute of Economic Affairs, March 2015, http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Briefing_1502_The%20EU%20Jobs%20Myth_web.pdf p.9.
Leaving would take back power to control the economy

Voting to leave would take back the power over the British economy that the European Union currently has and give it back to the sovereign British Parliament. EU common fisheries and agriculture (CAP) policies control how many fish we can catch and what is commercially farmable. If the UK were to leave the British government would be once more able to shape an industrial policy; for example under EU rules it did not have the power to save Port Talbot as it is not allowed to provide subsidies to support the failing plant.[1] [1] Rankin, Jennifer, ‘EU sets tone as it cracks down on subsidies for struggling steelworks’, theguardian.com, 20 January 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/eu-cracks-down-subsidies-struggling-steelworks-belgium
We need to unshackle the economy

The UK needs to unshackle the economy from the restrictions the EU places upon it. EU bureaucracy and red tape holds back Britain’s service industries. Regulations on employment rights, hiring, and firing restrict the supply of workers pushing up costs to businesses. To take one example Britain is facing a curry crisis; curry houses are closing due to an inability to secure skilled chefs from the Indian subcontinent.[1] Being able to set the UK’s own migration system would enable the UK to hire people with the skills we need. [1] Robinson, Nick, ‘Who will cook your Indian curry?’, BBC News, 26 May 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36378655
There will be £350 million more to spend a week

Through leaving the EU Britain will no longer send £350million per week to Europe so can spend it at home.[1] Of course much of this sum comes back to the UK but the UK will gain greater control over how and where the money is spent. Thus for example some money comes back in the form of CAP. We would however be able to decide how this money is used on farming rather than being dictated to by the EU or take the money out of farming all together. Even taking in to account money that comes back to the UK, and the rebate, the UK still sends £120million per week to Europe.[2] Money which would be freed up to spend on helping the NHS or building more affordable houses upon leaving. [1] ‘A vote to remain is the riskier option’, Vote Leave, http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/balance_sheet [2] Ashworth-Hayes, Sam, ‘UK doesn’t sent EU £350m a week or £55m a day’, infacts.org, 25 February 2016, http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/
A step away from a failing Eurozone

The Euro is failing as has been demonstrated by the years’ long slow motion crisis involving Greece and other peripheral countries Ireland, Spain, and Portugal. The chancellor George Osborne has in the past said that a Eurozone recession is the biggest economic risk to the UK.[1] This is still true. The UK will be safer taking a step away from integration with Europe by leaving the EU. [1] Chan, Szu Ping, ‘Eurozone recession is biggest risk to UK, says George Osborne’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html
Economic growth comes with closer integration with your neighbours

Economic integration with neighbours is the best way to economic growth. Neighbouring countries are almost always the countries a nation trades most with; in the UK’s case the EU accounts for 44.6% of exports and 53.2% of imports.[1] It is therefore in the UK’s interest to increase integration to encourage this trade. Throughout the world the trend is towards regional integration rather than away from it with regional organisations from Mercosur in South America to ASEAN in South East Asia encouraging integration. [1] Office for National Statistics, ‘How important is the European Union to UK trade and investment?’, 26 June 2015, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/international-transactions/outward-foreign-affiliates-statistics/how-important-is-the-european-union-to-uk-trade-and-investment-/sty-eu.html
Britain is needed to create a more business friendly Europe

The UK is a leader among the countries in the EU that is in favour of greater deregulation, privatisation, and free trade. As such the UK has been a strong positive influence on the EU in favour of these things. In the same way the UK played a strong role in encouraging the EU’s expansion to create a bigger market. The UK needs to remain in the EU to ensure the organisation flourishes. Prime Minister Cameron’s deal with Europe prior to the referendum for example included a promise by the EU to engage in “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation” something that benefits not just the UK but the EU as a whole.[1] [1] Reuters, ‘Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain’, 19 February 2016, http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-factbox-idUKKCN0VS2SH
Leaving will cause a shock to the British economy

The UK leaving the EU would likely be damaging not just to the British economy but globally with the G7 saying it would be “a further serious risk to growth.”[1] The damage to the UK economy would come for several reasons. First there would be uncertainty about what comes next; no one is quite sure what kind of deal the UK will get with the EU, or what will happen to EU migrants in the UK. Additionally businesses that trade with the EU will have uncertainty over that trading relationship and the UK will be a less favourable investment prospect because it is no longer a bridge to 500milion EU consumers. The treasury has estimated that GDP will be lower by 6.2% by 2030 as a result so many people will be considerably worse off.[2] [1] Asthana, Anushka, ‘Brexit would pose ‘serious risk’ to global growth, say G7 leaders’, theguardian.co.uk, 27 May 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/brexit-would-pose-a-serious-risk-to-global-growth-say-g7-leaders [2] HM Treasury, ‘HM Treasury analysis shows leaving EU would cost British households £4,300 per year’, gov.uk, 18 April 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hm-treasury-analysis-shows-leaving-eu-would-cost-british-households-4300-per-year
Leaving may increase British unemployment

Alongside this likely shock to the economy will most likely be a loss in jobs as a result in a loss in trade. Some big employers, such as many car makers, are located in the UK in large part as a result of the access to the EU market. It is estimated that three million UK jobs are linked to trade with the EU.[1] Estimates of the number of jobs lost vary considerably; the CBI has suggested 950,000[2] while the Treasury thinks 500,000.[3] The number may turn out to be less but clearly a large number of livelihoods will be damaged. [1] Ashworth-Hayes, Sam, ‘Will 3 million jobs be lost if we quit EU?’, infacts.org, 15 March 2016, http://infacts.org/will-3-million-jobs-lost-quit-eu/ [2] Kollewe, Julia, ‘ Brexit could cost £100bn and nearly 1m jobs, CBI warns’, theguardian.com, 21 March 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/21/brexit-could-cost-100bn-and-nearly-1m-jobs-cbi-warns [3] HM Treasury, ‘Britain to enter recession with 500,000 UK jobs lost if it left EU, new Treasury analysis shows’, gov.uk, 23 May 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-recession-with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu-new-treasury-analysis-shows
We need to unshackle the economy

The Brexit can’t have it both ways that it will both deregulate promoting the free market and enable an industrial policy that allows subsidies. In practice unshackling the economy means damaging workers’ rights that are protected by EU legislation of which the Working Time Directive is just the best known. Leaving would also damage just those sectors the Brexit side says it will help; finance needs access to Europe, as do many other creative industries.
There will be £350 million more to spend a week

Most of the claimed £350 million per week either is accounted for by the British rebate, £4.8billion in 2015[1] – which never actually leaves the UK – or is money the EU spends in the UK.  The £120 million remainder is however buys access to the EU’s market. Norway pays €340 million per year – about £63 million per week if it had a comparable population to the UK – to get access to the EU market but does not have any chance to influence that market.[2] [1] 94.4million per week, HM Treasury, ‘European Union Finances 2015: statement on the 2015 EU Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement’, gov.uk, December 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=18 [2] Solberg, Erna, ‘The ‘Norwegian model’ would be a poor alternative to EU membership for the UK’, LSE, 19th April 2013, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/19/norwegian-model-poor-alternative-eu-uk-membership-eea-erna-solberg/