BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High taxes stifles business and reduces the incentive for entrepeneurs

High taxes act as a disincentive to entrepreneurs it separates people from the fruits of their labour. Often new ventures are started at great financial risk by the founder and excessive taxation can skew the risk/reward ratio to the point where the enterprise is no longer worth the bother. In the business case, companies need to accumulate capital in order to expand their operations or break in to new markets and maintain working capital to cover the expenses of their day-to-day business activities. Forcing a business to go into or maintain a debt due to tax incurs a cost to the business and ultimately results in a less stable and/or competitive business. History has shown repeatedly that private enterprise is a more efficient allocator of assets than the government, as private enterprise takes in to account the relative cost of any action, reduced down to monetary terms (the profit motive). This is not to say that taxes and government are unnecessary, as non-revenue generating infrastructure is required to be built and maintained in order to facilitate modern life. But when the burden of taxation begins to affect and retard economic enterprise, society as a whole loses out.
Direct tax leads to democracy

This is presuming of course that democracy is in fact better for the state. It is presuming also that countries that charge extortionate taxes directly are actually giving the public the accountability they long for. How can it be said that a democracy, rule of the people by the people, is effected by one vote every four years for parties we have not chosen which collaborate together to come up with policies? How can we say that this one vote makes an effective state?
People willing to pay taxes shows that a state is effective

This argument formulates what high tax rates show us. But the reality is that this makes two fundamental mistakes. For one, the question is not ‘do taxes show us that society is effective’ but ‘do high taxes make a society effective’. This is an altogether different question. In addition, how can it be said that people are not paying taxes out of force? Maybe not physical force, but emotional. People are tied to where they live. If they have jobs, families, their language. Just because people stay it does not show that they are happy.
An effective state looks after the poor.

Just because more money is being paid into the Government's pocket via taxes, it does not necessarily mean that the money is being put into the welfare system. Between 1980 and 2005, Sweden raised the tax rate, and yet the consensus in Sweden is that the welfare system has not improved. In 2005, a survey was released into taxation and welfare. Sweden had the 12th best welfare system out of 23 industrialised countries. However, Sweden came last in how percentage of tax related to the level of welfare. [[The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions; http://www.thelocal.se/19648/20090525/%5D%5D
An effective state needs a good infrastructure

In order for a state to be considered as effective, the society needs to function economically. In order to a society to function economically, people need to get to work and there needs to be effective transport in order to get materials to factories and materials to warehouses. Businesses are unwilling to start their business where these facilities are not in place. Therefore, the state needs to pay for these facilities not only in starting them up but in maintaining them. The only way the state is able to pay for this is through taxes. The more taxes, the better the transport, the more business, the more effective the society.
The Government primarily look after their own.

We place a lot of trust in the Government when we pay them high taxes. We assume that the money we pay them in taxes will go on what is effective for society. These things include the health care system, the welfare benefits and the education system; public services. However, does the Government actually spend the money in the most effective way possible? In Sweden, where taxes can reach up to 60% when all the taxes are calculated, it has been shown that increased taxes actually results in more bureaucracy, not better public services. The money gets spent on hiring more people to work for the Government as administrators, in order so that the Government have to do less work instead of being spent on important officials like police men, doctors or educators.
Direct tax leads to democracy

As people can see that they are contributing to the public wealth, they become more interested in how that money is spent. Being more interested in it, means they are more likely to want a say in it. This leads to democracy. The public wanting to have a say in how their money is spent. It is for this reason that we can see in Middle Eastern countries where there is dictatorship not democracy taxes are derived in a more discrete manner, indirect taxes hidden in the price of good. Hidden in such a way people are not confronted with how much they are actually contributing to society and therefore they do not want a say so much in how it is spent. It is for this reason that the higher the taxes, the better the democracy and the better the state.
People willing to pay taxes shows that a state is effective

People would not be willing to pay taxes for a state which they do not agree with or do not want to be a part of. Therefore the higher the taxes that the public are paying without revolt or force means that the citizens are happy with how the state is run. Especially with the European Union, if people were not happy they could easily move elsewhere. By people staying in a country with high taxes, the Government is showing that they are effective and they are keeping their people happy.
An effective state looks after the poor.

The higher the rate of taxes that a Government imposes the more money that Government has to look after the people who live in that society. This is what an effective society does, it looks after the weaker members, those who need help in looking after themselves. Less effective states will instead try and diminish the weak in their society. But this simply does not cohere with modern advanced society morals. Therefore, the higher the taxes, the better able the state is to look after the weak and the more effective the society is.
The potential for a safer world.

Everyone’s idea of what is the most urgent threat to the world is different. This makes it very difficult to decide what should be tackled to create a safer world. Kofi Annan Almost everyone in today's world feels insecure, but not everyone feels insecure about the same thing. Different threats seem more urgent to people in different parts of the world. Probably the largest number would give priority to economic and social threats, including poverty, environmental degradation and infectious disease. Others might stress inter-state conflict; yet others internal conflict, including civil war. Many people – especially but not only in the developed world – would now put terrorism at the top of their list. [[Kofi A. Annan, Princeton University, 28/11/06, Role of disarmament, non-proliferation examined in Princeton lecture http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/statments_full.asp?statID=6%5D%5D So tackling which is the best way to a safer world? It is true taking away nuclear weapons removes an element of risk from everyone on earth. But that risk is very small, should this small risk be worth more than very large risks to smaller numbers such as that posed by more conventional conflicts and civil wars?
The potential for a safer world.

What is safety? The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury.[[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2009) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/safety%5D%5D The essential part is risk. Having nuclear weapons creates a risk for everyone on the planet, a global risk of almost complete destruction. The world would therefore be much safer without nuclear weapons.
Unilateral disarmament will encourage others to disarm.

Unfortunately the security dilemma is better at escalating than it is at de-escalating. If a state such as Britain gets rid of its nuclear weapons then rather than applauding the action (though they will do so in public) others such as Russia will see it as one less threat to worry about. But look from Russia’s perspective there is still France, the USA and China all to worry about. Compared to Britain China is much more worrying as they share a border, and the USA is a long term rival. So does this British action make any difference? Instead the paranoia that is inherent in the security dilemma would mean that the country’s with nuclear weapons are likely to respond with ‘why should I believe you?’ At the same time the security dilemma would be encouraging Britain to rearm. While we may consider ourselves under the US nuclear dilemma it would only take the US seeming to become isolationist again for us to have to begin reconsidering. The security dilemma far from encouraging or providing a case for unilateral disarmament works against it. Instead if there is to be disarmament unilateral disarmament is not the best way to go about it. There needs to be multilateral disarmament so that the threat everyone poses declines at the same time.
Unilateral disarmament will encourage others to disarm.

Unilateral disarmament would encourage others to disarm their own nuclear weapons. This would especially be the case if the state that was unilaterally disarming was one of the major nuclear powers such as the USA or Russia. Why this would be the case can be best illustrated by turning the argument around and asking why states want nuclear weapons. The answer can be summed up with the security dilemma Wheeler and Booth the military preparations of one state create an unresolvable uncertainty in the mind of another as to whether those preparations are for defensive purposes only (to enhance its security), or whether they are for offensive purposes (to weaken anothers security) [[Paul Roe, ‘The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as a ‘Tragedy’?’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.36, no.2, 1999, pp183-202, http://www.jstor.org/pss/424669%5D%5D This dilemma is equally apparent with nuclear weapons as with any other type of military preparation. kofi Annan the more that those states that already have [nuclear weapons] increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security [[Quoted in, ALTERNATIVE WHITE PAPER Safer Britain, Safer World The decision not to replace Trident, Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament, 11/6, p.3., http://www.cnduk.org/images/stories/briefings/trident/alt_white_paper_07.pdf%5D%5D The security dilemma is potentially even worse for nuclear weapons than with other types of weapons. This is because with other weapons such as tanks other states can see them moving towards their borders so have time to prepare, negotiate and defuse a crisis. Nuclear weapons in their silos are however the ultimate offensive weapon. There is no defensive use for them. Moreover they cannot be seen or monitored easily by other powers. So other states if they want to have any security have to have them to create deterrence. Conversely if we begin reducing the number of nuclear weapons the threat created by the security dilemma reduces. If Britain disarms then Russia, France and the other nuclear powers have one less set of nuclear missiles to worry about and one less reason to keep their own (especially if Britain was the power they most worry about). At the same time states without nuclear weapons have one less reason to procure them.
There will be less nuclear weapons

This is all going to happen; assuming that disarmament will be a perfectly smooth efficient eco-friendly and somehow affordable process. Most people have lived long enough to understand that no politically motivated government directed mission ever goes perfectly to plan. And we are historically aware from experiences in the United States and the Russian Federation that methods employed to disarm to date have not been very successful. ...application of radioactive materials was not efficiently accompanied by a solution to the problem of managing the radioactive waste produced as a result of implementation of such technologies. Therefore, the main part of waste accumulated with no preliminary classification and preparation. As a result, significant areas have been alienated to store the radioactive wastes and there is a possibility of uncontrolled release of radionuclides into the environment ...As a consequence, there are serious risks of radioactive pollution of the environment and, in case of fuel leaking (60% of the decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines still have fuel inside), of a significant radioactive contamination of the sea on an international scale [[http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/meetings/eur_cernobio_como_98.htm]] We do not know enough about safe disarmament to achieve it presently. Also, all nuclear states are not first world countries; for them, conducting a safe/efficient removal of nuclear arsenals when/if a process of this kind is discovered; will prove be to be too financially taxing for them to agree. And if these poorer countries do agree (reluctantly post-aggressive coercion) they will most likely resort to rather sinister means of floating and obtaining finances to conduct the process. The key study to analyse safe disposal mentioned on the UNESCO website is recommended but has currently borne no fruit.
There will be less nuclear weapons

Obviously if one country disarms then there are going to be less nuclear weapons in the world. If Britain was to disarm then that would be 225 less weapons.[[Richard Norton-Taylor, Britain's nuclear arsenal is 225 warheads, reveals William Hague, guardian.co.uk, 26/5/10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/26/uk-nuclear-weapons-stockpile-warheads%5D%5D If it was the USA which as disarming then that would be a reduction of 5,113 weapons.[[Colum Lynch, Obama administration discloses size of U.S. nuclear arsenal, Washington Post, 4/5/10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050302089.html%5D%5D Any reduction in the number of nuclear weapons is a good thing.
Horses and dogs are among the principle victims of exploitation in human sporting activities. The m...

We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting the animal welfare case at its strongest, we should ban all sports in which animals are treated cruelly, or are at high risk of injury or death. None of the sports mentioned by the proposition here fall into that category. Anyone who works in horse- or dog-racing will tell you that it is in their interest to ensure that the animals are healthy and happy, or else they will not perform well. They will also tell you that most of these animals enjoy racing and enjoy winning. As for polo, horses are rarely injured, the risk on injury is acceptably low.
The circus is another arena in which human beings abuse other animals. Animals are trained to perfo...

The circus is where children first learn to love animals! The proposition are right to draw attention to issues of animal welfare but again, they do not need to take such an extremist approach. There is evidence that animals enjoy performing and can form close relationships with their trainers and with an audience. Closer scrutiny of circuses and better enforcement of animal welfare laws are desirable, but once those conditions are met the circus can be seen as a celebration of wild animals and the relationships they can form with animal-loving human beings. If the reality falls short of this ideal then reform is called for, not abolition.
Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised ...

To condemn bull fighting is to fail to be sensitive to cultural differences and to the true nature of the sport. First, bull fighting is an integral part of traditional Spanish culture that should therefore be respected in the same way that any other minority activity (such as the slaughtering of animals according to certain Jewish or Muslim ritual laws) would be. Secondly, the bull fight is a symbolic enactment of the battle between man and beast; the matador is a highly trained and highly skilled artist and fighter and takes his life in his hands when he enters the ring - it is a match between man and animal. Finally, since the bull would be killed anyway, it is of little consequence how it is killed.
All forms of sport and entertainment that exploit non-human animals should be banned; animals, like ...

All forms of sport and entertainment that exploit non-human animals should be banned; animals, like us, can feel fear, stress, exhaustion, and pain. To use animals for our own amusement, whether hunting them for sport or making them perform for us, is demeaning to ourselves as well as to them. Being a species with a great amount of power and control over other species brings with it a responsibility not to abuse that power. Using animals in sports and entertainment is an abuse of our position of responsibility and brutalises society towards animals and nature.
It is very easy to take up the opposition's challenge to provide concrete examples of cruelty to ani...

It is very easy to take up the opposition's challenge to provide concrete examples of cruelty to animals - there are many. Take the case of 'blood sports'. All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.
Horses and dogs are among the principle victims of exploitation in human sporting activities. The m...

Horses and dogs are among the principle victims of exploitation in human sporting activities. The main purpose of horse- and dog-racing is for human beings to indulge their penchant for gambling. The welfare of the animals involved is at best a secondary concern. Horses are frequently injured and die in horse races, especially races over hurdles such as the infamous British 'Grand National'; they are also blinkered and whipped to make them run faster. It is unconvincing to claim that the animals can enjoy being subjected to this. As for the conditions the animals are kept in, these may be good for the top dogs and horses, but in the main conditions are poor, and once the animals cease to win races they are likely to be neglected, abandoned, or slaughtered. Horses are also forced to take part in the dangerous contact sport of polo in which collisions and a hard, fast-moving puck pose serious danger to the animals who, unlike their riders, have no choice in whether they take part.
The circus is another arena in which human beings abuse other animals. Animals are trained to perfo...

The circus is another arena in which human beings abuse other animals. Animals are trained to perform tricks using whips, electronic goads, sticks, food-deprivation etc. Wild animals such as lions, tigers, and elephants are kept in shamefully inadequate conditions in tiny spaces. The necessity of regular transportation means that the circus can never provide an appropriate home for wild animals. These animals are forced to travel thousands of miles in cramped and squalid conditions and frequently end up physically and mentally ill. And what for? Purely for the entertainment of we arrogant exploitative humans. What sort of lesson does it teach our children about non-human animals to take them to the circus and see these great creatures demeaned and controlled by force to perform silly tricks?
Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised ...

Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised (in Spain, Portugal, parts of France, Mexico, and, illegally, in the United States). The idea that there is a fair match between the bull and the matador is laughable. The bull dies at the end of every single bullfight (it is either killed by the matador or slaughtered afterwards if it survives); for a matador to be seriously injured is rare and it is very rare indeed for a matador to die as the result of a bull fight. During bull fights the animals are taunted and goaded, and have sharp spears stuck into their bodies until eventually they collapse from their injuries and exhaustion. Matadors are not heroes or artists, they are cruel cowards.
All forms of sport and entertainment that exploit non-human animals should be banned; animals, like ...

All cultures throughout history have used animals in the context of sport and entertainment, from Roman chariot racing up to present day hunting, racing, and circuses. The issue here is not whether or not we can use other species for our own purposes - we can and it is only natural - the issue is animal cruelty, which everyone can agree should be ended. The proposition needs to demonstrate that the practices they are referring to are cruel - it is not enough to appeal to vague principles such as animal rights. There are two categories of activity that are acceptable: first, killing animals that are pests or that are going to be eaten; and secondly, using animals in enjoyable human sports in ways that do not involve cruelty.
It is very easy to take up the opposition's challenge to provide concrete examples of cruelty to ani...

Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other and there is no reason why we should be any different. These sports are always undertaken for a rational reason and are never gratuitous - they are either to exterminate pests or to provide food. In the case of foxes they are pests. Most of the alternative ways of killing them are more cruel - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by hounds dies instantaneously. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modern farms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm.
The Heathrow Project will help the economy by some $10.2 billion per year.

Although the expansion of the third runway at Heathrow may cause some environmental difficulties, it will considerably help the economy by bringing in some $10.2 billion per year. The plan is set to create an estimated 65,000 jobs which at a time such as the present, will significantly aid many British residents. What is more, the development will improve business for many airlines (90 airlines have made Heathrow their base) who may also be struggling due to the financial crisis and thus this may help prevent bankruptcy. Serving over 180 destinations in more than 90 countries and some 67 million passengers per year this project is bound to drastically help the economy. Consequently, the British Government has chosen to sacrifice the environment in order to improve the economy.