BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
2. The mixture between “dirty” & corrupt governments and “clean” & ethical corporations is simply impossible.

Just because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish “dirty” & “clean” or right from wrong, doesn’t mean our laws shouldn’t try to do so. FIRSTLY: The fact that some governments are corrupt doesn’t mean that this type of law should be abolished. Bottom line of Prop’s argument is that in corrupt countries there shouldn’t be any law at all, because we don’t trust them to enforce it! Team Israel sees no reason to bow before corruption and ease it, just because it exists. When a crime is committed repeatedly, it’s a reason to increase oversight, not to legalize it. SECONDLY: We don’t agree with Prop’s notion that the problem here is “demand” alone. Just like every criminal market, we find both the the supplier and the client to be guilty. Consider, for example the case with human trafficking, with drugs, or with child pornography. Both supply and demand exist in all these markets, all are illegal. We legislate in an effort to curb the entire market because we believe these practices are wrong and harmful - we don’t simply focus the “demand” and lift all prohibitions from the suppliers! THIRDLY: We don’t agree that there is over-regulation of any kind. Rather the opposite, as long as there’s corruption, the efforts aren’t sufficient. FINALLY: Prop’s logic is problematic when discussing the subject of settlement. We should remember that settlement can only occur after the state starts a judicial procedure against a corporation, which can only happen when there’s law. Without laws, states don’t have any option to act against corporations, and the corps don’t have any reason to settle. We should remember that settlement isn’t cooperation - it only comes after one side has decided to break the law unilaterally, and the other to uphold it. We see no reason whatsoever to cease fighting something that Prop agrees is harmful. As long as we’re weeding out the wrongs in our society there's no reason to give up.
The counterproductive Middle Man

Let’s compare the current situation, where law authorities police bribery, to the new advocated situation, where there’s no anti-bribery law, just other anti-fraud legislation such as tax evasion laws. Prop advocates that all loopholes that enable bribery should be self-policed by corporations. Ethically, government should be the body to protect against bribery (we discuss this below). Practically, what Prop suggest is bringing in a middle man - the corps’ self policing actions. Then, instead of the corp answering directly to the government, the gov’t will have to police the corps’ police activity. This raises obvious problems: 1. More difficult to prosecute - a new world of complex red tape keeping the gov’t further from the perpetrators. 2. Policing police equals even less results. 3. Less effectiveness results in room for much more bribery and corruption. Furthermore in practice we all saw what happened when financial institutions repeatedly argued they can self-police their practices. Then came the financial crisis of late 2000s, as a direct result of these corporations self-regulating their risky financial practices, while putting government regulators to sleep. Prop is going to create a reality similar to this if not worse. If corps  so  evidently  failed  to  regulate  themselves  even  in  their  core  areas  of  business,  necessary  for  their  own  survival,  we can’t expect  effective  self  regulation  in  the  area  of  CSR,  which  is  voluntary.[[http://is.gd/HFjycK]] This reference also provides saddening proofs of the failure of Prop’s advocated CSR’s in countries such as Nigeria,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  India. This new mechanism will make the entire process much more complex and less effective, which will create more bribes, dishonesty and corrupt corporate workers because along with this ineffective body the Prop proposed, there would be no Anti Brib
Companies have the interest of controling internal corruption themselves.

Legislating laws is critical to our society not just due to the effectiveness of laws in deterring corporations from corrupt acts. Laws are also important as a cursor and statement of what our society views as valid and moral conduct, and what we denounce as corrupt and undesirable. Therefore, Prop’s claim that bribery laws are not needed is missing the basic point of what laws are for. And practically, abolishing anti-bribery laws sends corporations the clear message of bribery no longer being denounced morally. Abolishing anti-bribery laws has nothing to do with motivating corporations to more social responsibility. Laws for protecting society, and social responsibility, are not mutually exclusive but actually co-exist: companies can report irregularities or display social responsibility, in an environment where there are also specific laws. We've also shown this in our previous refutation regarding environmental and social issues. Therefore, by keeping the anti bribery law, we as a society enjoy both the moral and deterrence benefits of the law, as well as the continued social responsibility of corporations, which is also fuelled by being fully aware and constantly reassured of society’s harsh view on bribery.
The mixture between “dirty” & corrupt governments and “clean” & ethical corporations is simply impossible.(reconstruction)

1. Perhaps a misunderstanding. Opposition in this debate has never advocated “adopting yet another law” or imposing "further" regulation. We’re simply talking about not abolishing laws we already have. Prop’s burden is to show that they are harmful ENOUGH as to warrant abolition. 2. We believe the most effective solution would be to tackle both supply & demand, as these are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, the entire market requires our attention, just as child pornography does. We target suppliers AND consumers of this market, because we believe it hams fundmental rights in society. We are also interested in what Prop suggests as a mechanism to lower demand for bribery, or human greed? Perhaps, until they have a great plan in mind, we can lower supply by limiting the ability of large corporations to pay bribes. 3. Prop is concerned that bribery laws unfairly impose “a preventive mechanism that the company is responsible for.” Regulation is expensive, they argue, therefore penalizes those who comply, and may find themselves “on the verge of bankruptcy.” But Props’ alternative to these laws is for companies to self-regulate & treat bribery prevention as part of their CSR missions! Surely this too requires “adequate procedures in place to prevent the offending conduct” which they find so cumbersome? It seems the proposed alternative given by our opponents- a basic tenet of their case- is riddled with exactly the issues they are trying to avoid. 4. On 1 hand, prop told us bribery laws are ineffective at reducing bribery, on the other hand they explain how these laws prevent some corps from bribing & thus impose an unfair disadvantage. So it seems that we now all agree that the laws DO have efficacy in preventing bribes. Prop are now concerned that those who don't or can't bribe will be disadvantaged. This is a ridiculous argument, best illustrated by an analogy:Those who don't exploit workers are at a financial disadvantage. Should we abo
Recruting 'inactively' is hypocrisy.

Another unsatisfactory aspect of the status quo, that would be addressed by richer countries 'actively' recruiting medical personnel from poorer ones, is the pretence of rich countries that the resulting damage done to donor nations is not their responsibility, as things stand. They are not to be blamed if doctors and nurses from poorer countries beat a path to their door; all they are doing is offering them the opportunity to better themselves. No, far better, we believe, to encourage richer countries to accept their responsibility for the negative effects of this trade, as a first step to correcting them. It's high time these shady deals were brought out into the light and formalised, as our proposal advocates.
Actively recruiting exacerbates brain drain

The crux of opposition’s argument here is that our proposal ‘openly promotes brain draining for it motivates governments in poor countries to open their doors for doctors to leave’. Alert readers may notice that this is the opposite argument to the one made above. Then opposition asserted our proposal would have the affect that ‘the individuals freedom to leave the country could be harmed’ and, heaven forbid, this might incentivise governments to take measures to prevent the brain drain which could reduce their citizens’ freedom. Perhaps we can assist opposition in their confusion. Yes, our proposal would restrict the freedom of newly-graduated medical personnel to cut and run without compensating the home nation for the costs of their training. And yes, by adding a significant but proportionate cost this will deter richer countries from poaching medical personnel. This is the market working as it should, by recalibrating price upwards we damp down demand and encourage supply; an economic solution to what we maintain is essentially an economic problem. So, to put opposition out of their misery, their previous answer was correct. Our proposal does not motivate governments to open their doors, as opposition’s own lengthy depiction of the status quo demonstrates: those doors are wide open now. What we suggest places an obstacle, a turnstile if you will, that rebalances the status quo in poorer nations’ favour. Elsewhere the opposition attest that “the countries are constantly having to train people to satisfy the basic needs of the population and can't take the next step and develop their own research and development facilities”. We feel that this IS a problem with the Brain Drain, but not with our model. Our model seeks to rectify this exact problem. Currently, under the status quo the opposition proposes, poorer countries are having to foot the bill of the training of medical personnel who then migrate to richer countries, as well as being burdened by the other costs of maintaining a medical infrastructure. The compensation aspect of our model removes the burden of paying for training from which the poorer country derives no benefit. The process of promoting these poorer countries as centres where medical personnel could be trained on a large scale, might even attract foreign investment for the maintenance of hospitals and equipment in poorer countries. The slippery slope that the opposition perceive can be dismissed easily, as history is riddled with cases where populations have doubted their governments, but we have not seen such mass migration as the opposition suggests. The opposition provide no explanation of why the doctor or nurse who wishes to relocate has an obligation to the poorer country where they first trained (which the proposition have repeatedly proven does not exist on moral terms only on an economic one).
Summary

We've shown that the primary cause of the brain drain in medical personnel is economic migration, and therefore we have advocated an economic solution. We evidenced this by demonstrating donor nations weren't characterised by the corrupt nature of their governments, criminality or persecution, but merely by the comparative economic advantage afforded by lower labour costs. Such economic migration is as old as humanity. It cannot be stopped particularly in the case that the would-be migrant has a readily saleable skill, as here. Because Opposition have not accepted this, to our minds inescapable truth, this debate has been fought on exceptionally narrow, actually rather tediously so, terrain. In spite of their outraged rhetoric, on close inspection the Opposition's main problem with our case does not amount to a principled objection to the flow of doctors out of their impoverished mother country, accepted as a status quo that must be rectified, but rather a practical objection that says our measure will make it worse. Opposition's acceptance of the status quo, a passive drift of medical personnel to richer countries, represents a massive concession that reduces our burden to proving that our measure can mitigate the current injustice even slightly. We chose to use the market, given our analysis that the primary reason for emigration of doctors is an economic one. We identified the current injustice to boil down to the fact that a poorer country makes an investment and the return accrues elsewhere. So we advocated a formal market, where the wealthier state could become the active trader, seeking out cheaply trained medical personnel and treating this exchange as a purchase. We cited the important example of the Phillippines, whose enlightened administration saw the folly of opposing the most fundamental of human instincts to personal betterment, and chose instead to work with it. By the simple expedient of encouraging their medical personnel to work abroad and send some of their earnings home, they were able to enjoy an increase of national income of 10%. At a stroke this turned an iniquitous, debilitating drain on a nation's resources, into a massively positive contribution to its financial health and a boon to the rest of the world. This is the model we seek to export; this is the context in which, we believe, rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poorer ones for the betterment of all.
Plan widens the research and development gap

The misunderstanding here is that whether there was a brain drain or not, there would still be an underfunded medical research sector in a poor country. The fact that a country is described as "poor" indicates it has limited resources to allocate to different purposes. A huge medical research commitment is never going to be approved as a worthwhile use of their limited budget, because in the modern age of globally shared medical information (remember developments in medical technology are not treated in the same way developments in nuclear technology are), an easy cost benefit analysis would rule it would be in the best interest of a poorer country to let a richer country develop the drugs and cures for diseases, whilst the poorer country used its budget towards basic infrastructural needs. The notion that AIDS and tuberculosis would go ignored by the medical research of a richer country is ludicrous. For example, drugs for the treatment of malaria have already been developed, with the ingredients needed for this drug internationally known, the reason why we still see high numbers of malaria cases in African countries is because they are unable to afford the drugs themselves, not because they are deprived of the knowledge of how to develop these drugs.
The Rights of the Individual

You can leave a country, leave behind your house and all your riches and make it all again elsewhere if you have a wealth generating profession such as being a doctor. It's not possible to claim to uphold individual freedoms and advance a policy that includes considering the profession of the individual not as his or her property but the country's. The other side may have predicted we would be defending that a country should defend itself from brain drain by closing the borders. If so, they were wrong. We do believe doctors as every other professional have the right to fulfill their potential, but the plan of the proposition does not bring this about, in fact, it doesn’t even get close to protecting the doctors right to achieve their potential or "actualise the initial desire associated with the choice of that field" since they are not part of the decision about their compensation. On the contrary, the doctor is a “product” that will work to meet the specialized needs in the buyer country. It's a reality that professionals leave their countries, because they are able to take advantage in other opportunities, but even though it may cause a scarcity of their profession in their country, that is part of the rights of the individual, whether or not they choose to stay. We are the real defenders of the right of the individual by defending the status quo, since we maintain the actual status where doctors are the decision-makers in their process of migration. In fact, doing the prop. plan will worsen the situation of the “right of the individual to practice their skills in accordance with their preferences”; since governments will manage the doctor's market, in order to maximize their income, by producing doctors as if they where just some merchandise, or as the proposition calls it, a “resource”, means the government may not let them choose the specialty they want, but what the buyer is in need of. It is not a good thing when a government thinks of itself as being entitled to charge for the migration of their inhabitants. They should see themselves as employees of their citizens, not their owners. In conclusion we are able to establish that since in their plan a country could prevent doctors from leaving the country because of the existence of the “doctor’s labor market of compensations” which is run by the governments, and controls who and when will have the opportunity and how much it will cost. Therefore, the right of the individuals is definitely NOT protected in the arguments of the propositions plan.
Harms and more harms

We agree that brain drains in any direction are bad. It's just that commercial logic dictates the flow takes place from poorer to richer rather than the other way around. And, as we demonstrated in our previous rebuttal, doctors are not a scarce resource everywhere. The inefficiencies of the present labour market have led to massive over-supply in the UK as we saw. By persisting in styling donor countries as poor per se and domestic conditions as desperate, they misrepresent the reality of the problem and misdiagnose the solution accordingly. Although they now attempt to row away from this when they concede, as they must, that 'some brain drains (are) explained by improvements in salaries', in their initial point they argued strongly against this by saying brain drains are caused by wars and rampant criminality, and that for this reason compensation would not have any impact. We see resurfacing here, also, the curious pschizophrenia that characterises their case against compensation as being simultaneously so demeaning and humiliating that no self-respecting Government would accept it, and so dazzlingly beguilingly attractive that Governments would kick their unwilling doctors out just to get their hands on it.
The Rights of the Individual

Side proposition advocate viewing the rights of medical professionals in the same way as professionals in any other field. A doctor has the right, as Aristotle would attest, to fulfill her full potential, or, in other words to have the freedom to actualise the initial desire associated with the choice of that field. No-one would contest the right of a lawyer trained in X to avail themselves of the opportunities in Y, and we see no reason why the case should not be the same for doctors. The only real distinction would be their scarcity in some countries, but this cannot override the right of the individual to practice their skills in accordance with their preferences, which may include the highest salary they can earn. As with other professions, a factor of this preference could also include the very real differences in specialisation opportunity, research methods or practice culture, which may be accessed through relocation to other countries. It is beyond the remit of any observer to say that one criteria of preference may not be a higher wage. To condone the view that scarcity in native countries of a particular profession supercedes what is a right of the individual to act on their preference would be to suggest that any scarcity of any profession warrants the prevention of the relocation of those people. A practical need, at any point where it should materialise, has the power to override the freedom of individuals. To follow this through results in a number of absurd conclusions- a citizen with dreams of America could enter a field, only to find that years later when she is qualified, she has enetred a category that is barred from exit.
Plan promotes abuse by bad governments

Economic disparities are inevitable and might arise out of any number of circumstances. The mistake opposition makes here is to characterise poorer countries as poor per se, and to represent the source of their poverty as bad governance. To take the first point brain drains, including the loss of medical personnel, take place between relatively rich countries provided the income disparity is wide enough. For example, rich Middle Eastern countries actively recruit doctors and nurses from Europe by offering high wages and low rates of taxation. What about opposition's claim with regard to genuinely poor countries that their poverty is the result of incompetent or dishonest governance? We find this to be a very unattractive generalisation, what about dearth of resources, adverse climates and so on? Nevertheless let's consider the marginal case they postulate on their terms: "If a country is poor and doctors start leaving in the search for better conditions, the government would receive a financial boost that would motivate the perpetuation of the failed policies" Allowing these poor countries to benefit from the comparative advantage they do have is a way of granting them a revenue stream which replaces the loss they experience under the status quo advocated by the opposition. It is true that a corrupt government intent on crushing the people and making money for itself could train huge numbers of doctors at 8 years a piece; enforce a network of disincentivising legislation to work domestically, and pocket the money paid back for their training along with the profit. Although this would be a bizarre and inefficient way of making a corrupt dollar, at least it is economically feasible. Surely the chance of this happening, however, is of insufficient significance to outweigh the costs of persevering with the very real and present injustice? (Note, that in this argument, opposition concede our suggested model would result in an increase in revenue to the poorer country, and incentivise governments to train more medical personnel, a fact they elsewhere deny.) Above all, we ought not to give up the attempt to form policies designed to assist poor countries, on the basis that the source of their poverty is likely to be corrupt government, and therefore to act to alleviate their citizens' hardship is to offer assistance to corruption. This is a counsel of despair, which, upon mature reflection, we are sure opposition would not wish to endorse.
Plan creates more friction between richer and poorer countries

As we have repeatedly made clear we abhor the brain drain and at this late stage opposition do not need to lecture us on how bad a thing it is, we know. In fact we think it is so bad that it deserves formal international recognition to actively control it, rather than allow the deadly passive drift to continue. We have proven that this issue can be reduced to an economic one, such that there really is no political or ideological criteria that would influence the price paid for the resource. Despite having criticized the idea that the state would have any control over flow, opposition have now characterized the exchanges as state orchestrated? To help them out again: it isn't. The poor country doesn't choose where doctors will want to emigrate. The rich country compensates the home state of the doctors that choose to apply for work there. There may be some natural affiliation in ideologies in terms of domestic doctors' preferences, but we fail to see how this is relevant; how this is heightened under our model as opposed to the status quo, or even why it is a particularly harmful thing? An emergent rhetorical theme here is that the act of paying poorer countries for the cost of training their medical personnel is somehow demeaning, while poaching them for nothing honours their dignity. But paying a fair price for the cost of education and training isn’t to treat humans as simple merchandise, any more than paying them a fair wage is.