BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hunting need not be tolerated; it is cruel and can be made unlawful

John Lawrence. A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on Horses, and on the Moral Duties of Man Towards the Brute Creation. "The Philosophy of Sports". 1798 - "The baiting of animals, as it is called, that is, chaining and staking down wretched captives, to be worried and torn to pieces by other animals, purposely trained for such usless barbarity, is absolutely unlawful, contrary to the light of reason, and the dictates of humanity, the foul disgrace of common sense, and never ought to be tolerated for a moment, in a government which claims to be instituted for the protection of rights, and the advancement of morailty."[13]
"Passion" for hunting is due to callousness

Henry Salt, Animals' Rights. "Sport, or Amateur Butchery". 1892. - "The sporting instinct is due to sheer callousness and insensibility ; the sportsman, by force of habit, or by force of hereditary influence, cannot understand or sympathize with the sufferings he causes, and being, in the great majority of instances, a man of slow perception, he actually finds it much easier to follow the hounds than to follow an argument."[6]
Human life is of greater intrinsic value than animal life

"Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite". Tibor R. Machan. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004 - "beings that lack a rational faculty also lack the capacity to contribute creatively to the values in nature. By contrast, human beings can create value, as a matter of our initiative, not merely exhibit it." To the extent that animals are of lesser value than humans, it is appropriate to eat them.
Hunting makes animals fearful of humans; breaches trust

John Wolcot. Ballade To a Fish of the Brooke. 1794. - WHY flyest thou away, with fear? "Trust me, there's nought of danger near; "I have no wicked hooke, "All cover'd with a snaring bait, "Alas ! to tempt thee to thy fate, "And dragge thee from the brooke. "O harmless Tenant of the Flood, "I do not wish to spill thy blood; "For Nature unto thee "Perchance hath given a tender wife, "And children dear, to charme thy life, "As she hath done for me. Enjoy thy streame, O harmless Fish "And when an Angler, for his dish, Through gluttony's vile sin, "Attempts, a wretch, to pull thee out; "God give thee strenght, O gentle Trout, "To pull the raskall in!
Proceeds of hunting industry go to wildlife sustainability

William Ramsdell. "In Defense of Hunting: Cruella DeVille or Captain Planet?". 18 Apr. 2008 - "The old statement, “Yeah, but you’re killing the animals you claim to protect” is worn out and uninformed. Any hunting operation allows only a small number of animals to be taken annually, the proceeds of which protect both that species and all other species on the property, hunted or not. During this process, biological data is recorded and submitted to Wildlife Services in order to keep close tabs on the overall health and population of the species."
Animals are equal to humans in science as lifeforms on Earth

Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind. Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science."
When hunting is unnecessary, it is barbaric; killing for pleasure

Matthew Scully, author of Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. In an interview with the National Review Online. "Exploring 'Dominion'". December 3, 2002 - "Scully: One thing I noticed, reading articles and books by sport hunters, is that they themselves are often uneasy about the things they do. And I hope Dominion will encourage more of that self-examination among the relatively few people — about five percent of Americans — with a taste for bloodsport. Hunting, if it can be justified at all, falls into the category of the necessary evil. When the aim is just the pleasure of stalking and killing, or the pride of a "trophy," the necessity is absent and you have to ask yourself what's left."
Hunters are the tyrannical, genocidal, "mass-murderers" of animals

(Soame Jenyns, Disquisitions on Several Subjects, "Cruelty to Inferior Animals," 1782) - "What name should we bestow on a superior Being, whose whole endeavours were employed, and whose whole pleasure consisted in terrifying, ensnaring, tormenting and destroying mankind ?… I say, what name detestable enough could we find for such a Being ? Yet, if we impartially consider the case, and our intermediate situation, we must acknowledge, that, with regard to inferior animals, just such a Being is a sportsman."
Animals have emotions, personalities, and souls just like humans

Henry David Thoreau - "I saw deep in the eyes of the animals the human soul look out upon me. I saw where it was born deep down under feathers and fur, or condemned for a while to roam four-footed among the brambles, I caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner and swore that I would be faithful."[14] Many pet-owners believe that their pets have personalities. Socially, in many countries, eating typical house pets (dogs and cats) is considered a major social taboo. However, other animals (cows, pigs, chickens) are raised as food. This conflicting and inconsistent attitude towards animals indicates how socially determined our attitudes towards meat-eating is. Vegetarianism simply extends the typical attitude towards common household pets to other animals species.
Chávez has specifically stated his opposition to privatization

"Privatization is a neoliberal and imperialist plan. Health can’t be privatized because it is a fundamental human right, nor can education, water, electricity and other public services. They can’t be surrendered to private capital that denies the people from their rights." - Hugo Chávez during his closing speech at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. January 31, 2005. [2]
The lack of support to private sector makes Venezuela unattractive for investments.

The business environment is claimed to be risky and discourages investment, according to El Universal. As measured by prices on local stock exchanges, investors are willing to pay on average 16.3 years worth of earnings to invest in Colombian companies, 15.9 in Chile, 11.1 in Mexico, and 10.7 in Brazil, but only 5.8 in Venezuela. The World Economic Forum ranked Venezuela as 82 out of 102 countries on a measure of how favorable investment is for institutions. However, the encouragement of private initiative will result in the improvement of the investment climate.[3]
Great social spendings allow people of Venezuela to use many services free.

According Dan Grech, "President Hugo Chavez dedicates more than 20 percent of Venezuela's GDP to social spending. The U.S., by comparison, spends a similar percentage on its entire federal budget." This number is enough to provide free medicine, education, etc. However, cutting social spendings will deprive the population of Venezuela from the possibility of using of these free services and, as a result, cause dissatisfaction of the people.
Private farming is more effective to deal with food problem.

The Centre for Documentation and Analysis (CENDA) reports that staples such as black beans, rice, maize flour and meat were missing from the shelves of many shops in May. Butchers have staged protests, complaining that price controls oblige them to sell some cuts below cost. Governmental regulations on food production and import do not satisfy people's needs, due to the limited amount of food the prices are increasing. Therefore, private farming should be introduced in order to feed people.
Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man.

Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being. Increased private sector influence and less public jobs and industries will reduce the sharing of wealth.
Hugo Chávez has specifically stated that he supports capitalism.

“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can not be transcended through capitalism itself; it must be done through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed by Washington. “Hugo Chávez during his closing speech at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. January 31, 2005. [1]
US autos have failed to control labor cost

Mitt Romney. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". New York Times. 18 Nov 2008 - "I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers. First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers. That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable."
US autos are as deserving of bailout as Wall Street

Steven Pearlstein. "The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - "while the White House has indicated its reluctance to involve the government in the rescue of yet another industry, it may have a hard time explaining why the automakers are any less deserving of a "bailout" than Wall Street investment banks or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Bailout with strings attached will not help autos compete

Daniel J. Ikenson. "Don’t Bail Out the Big Three". The American. 21 Nov. 2008 - "To dampen criticism, Congressional Democrats speak of a bailout “with strings attached.” But even a strings-attached bailout poses problems.[...]First, Congress doesn’t know enough about the auto business to dictate operational conditions. “Strings” that cap executive compensation will chase talent away. Strings that force Detroit to produce high-mileage vehicles when gas prices are plummeting will lead to a repetition of past mistakes. [...] Second, strings will make it easier for the Big Three to come back for more federal aid after they blow through the first $25 billion. Their CEOs will be able to say that they complied with the conditions of the original bailout, which happened to make matters worse for them."
Financial bailout was far more important than auto aid.

David Brooks. "Bailout to Nowhere". New York Times. 18 Nov. 2008 - "This is a different sort of endeavor than the $750 billion bailout of Wall Street. That money was used to save the financial system itself. It was used to save the capital markets on which the process of creative destruction depends [...] Granting immortality to Detroit's Big Three does not enhance creative destruction. It retards it. It crosses a line, a bright line."
Past US auto bailouts only fostered dependencies

Bill Steigerwald. "Don't Bail Out the Big Three". Town Hall. 17 Nov. 2008 - "A One of the examples I'm hearing from proponents of the current bailout is, "Let's go back to 1979 when Chrysler was bailed out. That was a success story. Chrysler came out of bankruptcy and paid back the U.S. taxpayer with interest after four years." Well, to me, the fact that the government stepped in back then has been an enabling implicit guarantee for the Big Three ever since. Had Chrysler gone under back then, I am convinced that the unions would not have had as much power as they had during the 1980s, because they would have been dealing with two companies instead of three. So they would have had less leverage. So had Chrysler had gone under then, the "Big Two" might not be in the position that they are in right now."
Bailout of US autos wrongly intervenes in marketplace

David Brooks. "Bailout to Nowhere". New York Times. 18 Nov. 2008 - "Not so long ago, corporate giants with names like PanAm, ITT and Montgomery Ward roamed the earth. They faded and were replaced by new companies with names like Microsoft, Southwest Airlines and Target. The U.S. became famous for this pattern of decay and new growth. Over time, American government built a bigger safety net so workers could survive the vicissitudes of this creative destruction — with unemployment insurance and soon, one hopes, health care security. But the government has generally not interfered in the dynamic process itself, which is the source of the country’s prosperity [...] But this, apparently, is about to change. Democrats from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi want to grant immortality to General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. They have decided to follow an earlier $25 billion loan with a $50 billion bailout, which would inevitably be followed by more billions later, because if these companies are not permitted to go bankrupt now, they never will be."
US carmakers have been making the transition to efficient cars

"Editorial: Big 3's critics have got the facts wrong". DetNews.com. 18 Nov. 2008 - "It's not only politicians who are perpetuating the myth that Detroit just discovered the world has changed [...] The facts suggest something different. While the industry initially lagged Honda and Toyota in fuel efficiency, General Motors has 18 models in its portfolio today that get 30 miles per gallon or more, and 11 of the last 13 new products and 18 of the next 19 will be cars or crossovers, and not pickup trucks or SUVs. Its new offerings, including the Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura, have swept the automotive awards the past two years."
US can rely entirely on foreign automakers in global economy

Richard M. Ebeling. "Bailing Out Big Auto Is a Bad Idea". American Institute for Economic Research. 10 Nov. 2008 - "When the current economic crisis passes – and it will as all other crises have in the past – Americans will still want cars, trucks, and maybe SUVs to drive. But that does not mean that the suppliers have to be American automobile manufacturers. The whole purpose of open, competitive markets is to find out who can “deliver the goods” better and cheaper, and to take advantage of the resulting cost savings and improved qualities of what is being offered."
US should make low interest loans to automakers

Steven Pearlstein. "The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - "the best of a set of bad options might be for the government to step in and provide the Big Three with low-interest long-term loans, just as it did years ago with Lockheed and Chrysler. The government should insist that its loans get first priority and be used only for investment in new technology that can be shared with competitors, or in new plants and equipment that could be sold to other car companies in the event of a bankruptcy. The government might also insist on further cuts in shareholder dividends, executive salaries, blue-collar wages and retiree benefits, at least until the current crisis has passed."
US autos didn't build green cars because Americans wouldn't buy them

Kate McLeod. "Help Detroit!". Wow O Wow. 2 Dec. 2008 - "They didn’t build green cars," you say? Well, we wanted pickups and SUVS. It just so happens that we liked pickups and SUVs, and they are still the best-selling vehicles. Sure, Detroit should have built better-looking, better-performing and better-quality cars — but how can we blame them for selling us what we wanted? By the way, today’s Detroit cars are pretty good — from the Ford Mustang to the Chevy Malibu to the Chrysler minivan — still the best-selling minivan in the world.
US autos may never get out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Daniel Gross. "In Defense of Detroit". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - More significantly, Chapter 11 proceedings for GM would be far more complicated than that of a retailer, or of Lehman Brothers. Recent experience shows that for auto companies, Chapter 11 is like the Hotel California. You can check in any time you like, but you can never be able to leave. Auto parts supplier Delphifiled for Chapter 11 in October 2005, and still languishes there. Getting out of Chapter 11 can be tough when (a) the bankrupt companies are capital-intensive manufacturers; and (b) creditors are reluctant to give up on their claims. Among those with the biggest claims on the automakers, and GM in particular, are the United Auto Workers."
Unexpected oil prices share blame for auto failures

Kate McLeod. "Help Detroit!". Wow O Wow. 2 Dec. 2008 - "It is easy to list the lame decisions that brought Detroit to its knees [...] True, they did this to themselves, but not entirely. Others can share the blame[...]Detroit didn’t cause the high gas prices, the subprime-mortgage mess or the stock-market collapse. All those led to the collapse of the auto business. Greedy Wall Streeters and bankers and a government that shut its eyes caused the problem. Detroit is paying the price for their mistakes."
Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos

Daniel Gross. "In Defense of Detroit". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - "is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions."
Automaker bailout unfairly disadvantages competition

"A Detroit Bailout Is Unwise". Wall Street Journal. 30 Aug. 2008 - "Aside from the cost to taxpayers, a government safety net for companies discourages prudent management. It also potentially puts rivals at a disadvantage, making markets less efficient and ultimately hurting consumers." That doesn't mean policy makers should never, ever, step in. But the test should be whether the alternative is disastrous enough to justify intervention."
US government should nationalize US automakers

Matthew F. Pawa. "Saving Detroit - from itself". The Boston Globe. 16 Nov. 2008 - "Congress is poised to enact a massive taxpayer bailout of GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Congressman Barney Frank is charged with crafting the emergency legislation. Our leaders apparently believe they have only two bad choices: do nothing and let the domestic automobile industry die, or postpone the inevitable by throwing good money after bad.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy will help autos restructure and regroup.

"Saving Detroit". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - "The United States created Chapter 11 precisely to help companies that need protection from their creditors while they restructure their liabilities and winnow out the good business from the bad. If the North American businesses of GM and Ford filed for Chapter 11, their activities elsewhere would be largely unaffected. Even in North America, their businesses could continue to make vehicles as they shed costs and renegotiated contracts."
Recent failure of autos does not justify letting them die

Bob Herbert. "‘Drop Dead’ Is Not an Option". New York Times. 17 Nov. 2008 - "It’s easy to demonize the American auto industry. It has behaved with the foresight of a crack addict for years. But even when people set their own houses on fire, we still dial 9-1-1, hoping to save lives, salvage what we can and protect the rest of the neighborhood."
US autos forgot product development; don't deserve bailout

Bill Steigerwald. "Don't Bail Out the Big Three". Town Hall. 17 Nov. 2008 - "On the product side, management demonstrated an egregious failure of leadership by never envisioning the day when SUVS and big trucks would fall out of favor. In the 1980s, the Big Three made predominantly cars. And over a 20-year period they have shifted to predominately SUVs and trucks. I think in 2006 about 75 percent of Ford's output were big trucks and SUVs; slightly smaller for Chrysler and GM. Now those are high-profit margin cars for them, so I can understand why they would want to produce those. But you have to diversify your products and you can't just rely on trucks and SUVs."
Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers

"Saving Detroit". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - "The carmakers retort that being in Chapter 11 will poison their business. Buying a new car is a long-term gamble on there being dealers, spare parts and a thriving second-hand market for your vehicle. Drivers overwhelmingly tell surveys that they would not take the risk when Mercedes and Toyota make perfectly good alternatives. But $50 billion is a lot to stake on a hunch. A wiser bet is that whatever consumers say today, the stigma of being in Chapter 11 would fade, obscured by price cuts, advertising and most of all news that the car companies were tackling their remaining problems. Remember that, in many ways, Chapter 11 is more stable and predictable than depending upon the government."
Auto companies key to US energy security

Jennifer M. Granholm. "Save automakers to help economy and security". CNN.com. 13 Nov. 2008 - "why not just let General Motors, Chrysler and Ford go under? As the governor of Michigan, the home of the U.S. auto industry, it's a question I get asked every day. Letting the auto industry disappear will be devastating -- not just to Michigan, but to the entire nation. It will make our national economy even worse, eliminate our ability to achieve energy independence and weaken our national security."
US autos shirked fuel standards, don't deserve bailout

"Saving Detroit From Itself". New York Times. 17 Nov 2008 - "Detroit’s problems are mostly of its own making[...]The automakers hitched their fate to gas-guzzling trucks, and they obstinately refused to acknowledge that oil is a finite resource and that burning it limitlessly is harming the planet. They lobbied strenuously against tighter fuel-efficiency standards. That wrongheadedness did them in as gas prices spiked and consumers flocked to energy-efficient cars made by Toyota and Honda."
Chrysler and GM should declare bankruptcy and merge

Jack and Suzy Welch. "GM: The Case Against a Bailout". Business Week. 18 Nov. 2008 - "Should the government bail out the U.S. auto industry to keep the players from going into bankruptcy?—Bill VanderMolen, Pittsfield Township, Mich [...] How about this instead: The boards of Chrysler and General Motors (GM) put their companies into bankruptcy with the clear intent of reorganization and merger. As radical as that sounds, it's the best road we can see to a viable future for the industry."
Auto bailout protects great cars just now coming out

Kate McLeod. "Help Detroit!". Wow O Wow. 2 Dec. 2008 - "They’ve got good stuff coming — if they live to bring it out. The Chevy Cruze, a compact that will get 40+ mpg on the highway with a regular gasoline engine, the Volt, the Camaro, the gorgeous Cadillac CTS coupe, the coming Ford Fiesta small car, the coming Focus, next year’s Mustang, the twin-turbo switchover."