BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Calorie counts a better option than taxing unhealthy foods

David Kiley. "Fast Food Menu Calorie Counter Should Be National Law". Business Week. July 17, 2009: "We all have heard the idea of putting a tax on fast food and soda pop and the rest to help pay for public healthcare remedies. Before we do that, though, how about making NYC’s reg national and see how the marketplace works it out. That would seem to me to be a very conservative remedy before we consider taxes. Just give us the info at point-of sale, and let customers decide what’s best for them. [...] Beats more taxes."
Calorie counts are ineffective at compelling healthier choices

Jeff Jacoby. "Want a warning label with those fries?" The Boston Globe. January 11, 2009: "with the rise of the Internet, Americans have access to more such information today than ever before. Yet Americans are also fatter than ever before. [...] Perhaps that is because hectoring people about calories doesn't usually make them thinner. It doesn't work when family members do it. It won't work any better when regulators do it. Not even in Massachusetts."
Consumers can find info off menus, calorie counts unnecessary

Steve Chapman. "Force-fed the facts". Reason. June 23, 2008: "the entire effort rests on assumptions that are unexamined and unfounded. The first is that consumers place a high value on the information being mandated. Actually, most of it is already accessible (online, among other ways) to anyone who is interested. In many places, it is available onsite, on tray liners or pamphlets." [Therefore, customers already often have a choice to inform themselves on the calorie contents of foods in restaurants].
Counting portions, not calories, is a better route to health

Bill Phillips. "The Truth About Counting Calories". FormerFatGuy.com: "There aren't many people who can keep track of their calorie intake for an extended period of time. As an alternative, I recommend counting 'portions.' A portion of food is roughly equal to the size of your clenched fist or the palm of your hand. Each portion of protein or carbohydrate typically contains between 100 and 150 calories. For example, one chicken breast is approximately one portion of protein, and one medium-sized baked potato is approximately one portion of carbohydrate."
Consumers have a right to know calories in meals

Karen Springen. "Full Disclosure". Newsweek. November 14, 2008: "The other important reason [for calorie counts] is just consumers' right to know. You have whatever clothing you're wearing now. It has the tag on it that says where it's made and what it's made of. Why? You deserve to know. When you buy a packaged food, it says what's in it. Consumers would be upset if that information was taken away."
Calories on menus respond to unhealthy restaurants

Margo G. Wootan, nutrition policy director at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said in 2008 following passage of legislation in California mandating calorie counts on menus: "States and cities are interested in menu labeling because of the growing role that chain food restaurants play in Americans' diet. Most Americans get a third of their calories from eating out. And, unfortunately, restaurant foods play a very problematic role in our diets."[8]
Calorie counting is a critical component of a healthy diet.

While it is true that calorie counting alone is not sufficient for a healthy diet - as one could simply eat two hamburgers a day and meet their calorie requirements - it is true that it is a critical component of a healthy diet. It could be said to be the most important single factor for all diets, particularly when the focus is losing weight. That calorie counts are not the whole story should not be used against them. They are just the most important factor in reducing the obesity epidemic, making it critical for restaurants to list calories on menus.
Calorie counts rightly value health over blissful ignorance

There is no such thing as "blissful ignorance". While it is interesting to argue that customers sometimes would prefer to live in "blissful ignorance" of the calories in the foods they are eating, this argument is much weaker than the general principle that more information is always better, especially when it comes to health. The "bliss" a few customers might feel when ignoring their health at a restaurant is far outweighed by the pain and suffering caused by obesity, heart-disease, and the strains on the health-care system that result.
Emissions trading will worsen global inequalities

"The case against carbon trading". Risingtide UK. 2002 - "Market shares in the new carbon market will be allocated on the basis of who is already the largest polluter and who is fastest to exploit the market. The new "carbocrats" will therefore be the global oil, chemical, and car corporations, and the richest nations; the very groups that created the problem of climate change in the first place. What is more, with the current absence of "supplementarity", the richest nations and corporations will be able to further increase their global share of emissions by outbidding poorer interests for carbon credits."
Carbon trading encourages efficient emissions reductions

"Why a Cap-And-Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax". Portfolio.com (Conde Nast). 19 Apr. 2007 - "The efficiency [of a cap-and-trade system] comes with the "trade" part. Let's say you have two power plants, each emitting 100 tons of carbon per hour. The first can reduce its emissions by 20 tons at a cost of $5 per ton, and the second can reduce its emissions by only 10 tons, at a cost of $30 per ton. Clearly the efficient thing to do is to make the former reduction rather than the latter, with the owner of the second plant paying the owner of the first plant to offset the first owner's extra costs [by buying carbon credits and the "right" to pollute from the first plant]."
Emissions trading can disproportionately pollute poor countries

"Cap and trade is not the answer: an open letter". Transnational Institute. 31 Jan. 2007 - "Sulphur dioxide trading in the U.S., often touted as an unequivocal success and a model for carbon trading programs internationally, has had similar disproportionate impacts on poor communities and communities of color. It was their air quality that suffered in exchange for more "efficient" cuts in pollution elsewhere. Plants in Tennessee were allowed to spew tons more sulphur dioxide into the air than plants in the Northeast, choking the residents living near the plant with acid gases. Paint peeled off cars and local property values suffered as communities in the Northeast benefited."
The EU Emissions Trading System is a success

"Review of pilot phase of European Union Emissions Trading Scheme finds it to be successful". Denny Ellerman. 28 May 2007 - "An analysis of the historical emissions data by the economists suggests that abatement or environmental measure taken by companies had achieved a reduction of about 7 per cent, even allowing for the growth in emissions that accompanies growth in gross domestic product. The economists conclude ETS has been successful in helping to correct what they call the market failure that surrounds climate change, and in delivering the EU's commitments to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The seven conclude that it will be central to future global climate negotiations. They also call for a global framework for managing climate policy in the long term."[2]
Cap-and-trade systems ensure emissions reductions to the set cap

: "Carbon tax vs. carbon market: who would win in a fight?". 15 Aug. 2006 - "In a cap-and-trade carbon market, total emissions are guaranteed to go down. The cap is the cap, and assuming some reasonably effective enforcement mechanism, not a pound more carbon can be emitted. A carbon tax, on the other hand, merely encourages people to emit less by making it more expensive to do so. And in the case of fossil fuels, people seem perversely resistant to financial incentives."
Carbon trading incentivizes companies to cut emissions:

A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive.
Global C02 trading not like US sulfur trading

"The case against carbon trading". Rising Tide - "CO2 IS NOT SO2. The main model for carbon trading is Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) emissions trading under the US 1990 Clean Air Act. This programme faced none of the problems listed above- it was small (a few hundred companies), easy to monitor (one pollutant from one source-power generation), had permanent targets, and, above all, was conducted within one country with strong enforcement mechanisms."
Emissions trading encourages investments in best technologies

Bill Chameides, Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense. "Cap-and-trade: more effective than a carbon tax". Grist.org. 12 Feb. 2007 - "Subsidizing one or two targeted technologies with a carbon tax would discourage investment in others that may turn out to be more effective. Which technologies should receive these tax dollars? No one has a crystal ball that can determine for sure which will turn out to be most useful. History has shown that the marketplace does a better job of developing new technologies, and a tax takes money out of the marketplace. The solution is cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade strategy provides the incentive for all segments of the economy to compete to discover the best ways to cut emissions."
The Chicago Climate Exchange is a success and model.

Jason Margolis. "My Kind of Down Chicago Climate Exchange paves the way for U.S. emissions trading". 14 Jun 2005 - "City officials are not sitting idly by waiting to see if or when such things could happen. This spring, Oakland became the second U.S. municipality to join the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) -- North America's first and only voluntary, but legally binding, emissions-trading market.
Emissions trading wrongly allows companies to buy right to pollute

"The Case Against Carbon Trading". Rising Tide. Mar. 2002 - "Carbon Trading IS an Excuse to Avoid Real Emissions Reductions. The hopelessly compromised Kyoto Protocol now allows countries to meet all their emissions reductions with carbon credits bought through three forms of carbon trading; Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanism, International Emissions Trade. Some countries will certainly choose to buy credits rather than make any serious attempt to reduce their underlying dependency on fossil fuels."
A cap-and-trade system is "progressive"

TerraPass. "Carbon tax vs. carbon market: who would win in a fight?". 15 Sept. 2006: "Tradeable carbon credits, on the other hand, could conceivably result in a net transfer of wealth to the poor. Although the poor spend a bigger proportion of their income on energy, the wealthy consume a far greater amount of carbon in absolute terms. So under a cap-and-trade regime, we would expect the poor (and the energy thrifty) to have excess credits to sell to their more profligate neighbors."
Emissions trading doesn't ensure reductions in local emissions

Kevin E. McCarthy. "Pros and cons of air emissions credit tradings". 9 Oct. 2000 - "The principal argument against trading programs is that they do not guarantee that improvements to air quality occur in the [local] areas that are most affected by air pollution. Some of the existing trading programs, such as the federal acid rain program for sulfur dioxide, allow trades over a very large region. While such programs do improve air quality in the aggregate, they do not necessarily reduce emissions at sources that make the greatest contribution to local air pollution and its resulting health problems."
Cap-and-trade systems are implemented too slowly

"Carbon tax vs cap-and-trade: which one is more likely to disgust the American public?". Environmental Economics. 6 June 2007: Our fear is that with so many billions at stake, any carbon cap-and-trade program will necessarily be beset by crippling delays, inside-dealing and favoritism run wild. The result will be to disgust and disillusion the American public so that it turns against putting a price on carbon emissions altogether.
Fuel economy standards do not put drivers at greater risk

Jen Dunnaway. "Latest Loony Argument Against CAFE Standards: High-MPG Cars Kill People". Car Domain Blog. 26 Mar. 2008 - "Republican lobbyist [Grover Norquist] claimed that requiring the automakers to eke up their mpg ratings was tantamount to murdering consumers—by forcing them into smaller cars, putting them at greater risk during collisions. His argument is based on one 2002 study that explored the effects of the diminishing body size of cars in the 70's. In addition to simplistically generalizing the results of that report to the new generation of compact cars, his position also ignores a lot of key realities about crashes, including the illusion of safety experienced by drivers of big vehicles, their greater likelihood of single-vehicle accidents and rollovers, and the tendency of large rides to transfer more energy to the bodies of occupants during a crash, resulting in worse injuries."
Fuel economy standards do not increase the cost of making cars

Felix Salmon. "GM's Weak Arguments Against Increased Fuel Economy Market Movers." Portfolio. 10 Sep. 2007 - "I, for one, am far from convinced that higher CAFE standards would increase the costs of making a car. In fact, insofar as they encouraged auto makers to make smaller cars and fewer SUVs, higher CAFE standards might even decrease the costs of making a car. Remember that cheaper cars, as a rule, are actually more fuel-efficient, not less."
Vehicle fuel economy standards can increase vehicle deaths

Charli E. Coon, J.D. "Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased". Heritage Foundation. 11 July 2001 - "The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. 5 This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards."
Fuel standards impair individuals needing high-powered trucks

Eric Peters. "No to New Fuel Economy Standards: Consumer Choice, Not Congress, Should Drive Detroit's Decisionmaking". National Policy Analysis. June 2007 - "Of course, it's easy to wag a finger at 'wasteful' pick-ups and SUVs from the halls of Congress -- and the editorial pages of big city newspapers. But the fact is many people (farmers, people with trailers to pull or large families to haul, contractors, etc.) simply need these kinds of vehicles -- and nothing else will do. You can't tow 9,000 pounds with a Camry. Sometimes, miles-per-gallon is not the sole reason for buying a vehicle."
Fuel economy standards better politically than gas taxes

Ezra Klein. "Gas Tax vs. Cafe Standards". The American Prospect. 29 Aug 2005 - "Gas taxes, unlike CAFE increases, are basically impossible to pass. Particularly now. It's one thing to sneak in a gas tax when fuel is cheap, but convincing Americans of it when they're demanding a drop in gas prices is not, I think, a sound recipe for political survival. It just won't happen. On the other hand, 93% of Americans support an increase in CAFE standards. That doesn't make it easy -- the auto industry is a powerful lobby. But they're going to fight a gas tax too, so I'd rather our politicians be battling back with an overwhelmingly popular proposal rather than running into industry opposition while carrying a bill Americans will stone them for passing."
Fuel economy standards unfairly punish car manufacturers

Dan Carney. "Why U.S. fuel-economy standards don't work". MSNBC. 4 Oct. 2007 - "Recognizing that burning less fuel is beneficial for a multitude of reasons, those countries employ an array of policies designed to encourage frugality. Some countries have a higher sales tax on cars with bigger engines. The fuel itself is taxed, making its purchase sting enough that consumers are willing to sacrifice some interior space. The tax on diesel fuel is lower, encouraging sales of more fuel-efficient diesel-powered models. Friedman seeks to be seen as punishing “Detroit” rather than the little guy. And the little guy is a factor. People with lower income spend a proportionally higher amount of their money on gas, so liberals are reluctant to tax them directly."
Gas prices pressure fuel efficiency; standards are unnecessary

Gattuso, James L. ; Jeffreys, Kent "The Mounting Dangers of the CAFE Mileage Standards". Heritage Foundation. 13 Oct. 1988 - "Although CAFE was first proposed to foster more fuel efficient cars, the average fuel ef ficiency.of cars driven in the U.S. actually began to increase even before standards were enacted. The reason was simple. With gasoline prices rising from 36 cents per gallon in 1972 to 53 cents per gallon in 1974, consumers began to demand more efficient automobiles."
Fuel economy standards help car companies stay competitive

Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007 - "Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards, even though Detroit’s failure to sell more energy-efficient vehicles has clearly contributed to its brush with bankruptcy, its loss of market share to Toyota and Honda — whose fleets beat all U.S. automakers in fuel economy in 2007 — and its loss of jobs. G.M. today has 73,000 working U.A.W. members, compared with 225,000 a decade ago. Last year, Toyota overtook G.M. as the world’s biggest automaker."
Fuel economy standards are a solution in search of a problem

Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Barry Felrice, Sam Kazman, and Dr. W. David Montgomery. "Fuel Economy Standards: Do they Work? Do they Kill?". Heritage Foundation. 8 Mar. 2002 - "CAFE is a solution in search of a problem. Is the problem global warming? Is it energy security? Is it traffic congestion and air pollution? Or is it simply the envy of some people who can't afford to buy large SUVs? I think that I can say confidently that except for, perhaps, a subset of that last problem, CAFE is not the right solution to whatever the problem advocated is."
Fuel economy standards increase driving so do not decrease emissions

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren. "Don't Raise CAFE Standards". CATO. 2 Aug. 2007 - "Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That's because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled."
Japan/Europe show high fuel economy standards achievable

Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007 - "Here are the facts: Thanks to the Michigan delegation, U.S. mileage standards for passenger car fleets have been frozen at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1985. Light trucks are even worse[...]Japan and Europe already have much better mileage standards for their auto fleets than the U.S. They both have many vehicles that could meet the U.S. goal for 2020 today, and they are committed to increasing their fleet standards toward 40 m.p.g. and above in the coming decade."
Fuel economy standards increase energy independence and security

"Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008 - "With the economy reeling from the effects of Wall Street some fools have been attacking what little progress America has made to move the country into a new future and better economic avenues. One of those successes have been stronger CAFE standards and moving America off of dependence on the international oil industry that is draining the economy of $700 billion dollars."
Efficiency standards a good alternative to more oil drilling

"The Way to Energy Independence (Hint: It Isn’t Drilling)". New York Times Editorial Board. 18 Aug. 2008 - "Wouldn’t it be great if we could satisfy our national appetite for oil by reducing consumption instead of increasing production — and protect the environment in the bargain?[...]We can — not by punching holes in the ground but simply by getting the numbers right on a piece of paper[...]Here’s how[...]Last December, Congress approved and President Bush signed a landmark energy bill that, among other things, upgraded the nation’s fuel economy standards for the first time in three decades[...]It requires automakers to achieve a fleetwide average for cars and light trucks of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That would be a 40 percent increase over today’s levels, and it could save as much as 1.1 million barrels of oil a day."
It is easy to catch people with laser pointers, but it's not easy to catch people using them improperly.

It is easy to catch people using laser pointers, or even just people possessing them, but the old law allowed possession of laser pointers, just as long as they were used proprerly. Before the law was in place, it was often very hard to catch laser offenders, and many of them got away with their crimes. Now it is much easier to catch laser users without permits.
Laser attacks on aircraft are rare and offenders are charged.

Laser attacks on aircraft are extremely rare. There have never been repeated laser offenders because all offenders have been charged with an illegal offence and will never attack again. Most airports have never reported any laser attacks on landing aircraft and only a few (particularly Sydney Airport) have reported them, although they are rare and do not happen regularly. Pointing lasers at aircraft is the only problem caused by laser pointers and these issues are illegal and uncommon. Lasers are not a huge problem and do not pose an immediate threat to the safety of people.
The crime is very dangerous.

People using laser pointers inappropriately (eg. pointing them at low flying aircraft) is a serious problem. Pointing laser pointers at pilots temporarily blinds them and can cause the pilot to lose control of a low-flying aircraft and crash, killing many people. In places like Sydney, laser pointers have been a huge problem. Pilots have agreed that jail is a suitable punishment for improper use of laser pointers and it is. The use of them can cause serious accidents and that is why the NSW Government has banned them.
Laser attacks are a growing threat to public safety

There have been an increasing number of dangerous laser pointer attacks on aircraft, which can temporarily blind pilots. In March, 2008, a particularly troubling coordinated attack came from four sources on an Australian rescue helicopter. The general manager of the Australian and International Pilot's Assocaition, Peter Somerville, said, "With this latest incident, the level of organisation that has been demonstrated by the perpetrators means that I am sure those state governments will move and move quickly as they should. Previously, of course, we have just had single incidents but this represents a completely new level of threat."[1]
Scientists and researchers can be exempted from laser ban

"ACT Will Ban Laser Pointers". Photonics (Australia). 11 June 2008 - "The Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, has announced that from July 1 this year anyone seeking to import powerful laser pointers will be required to have an appropriate exemption. Certain professional, technical and scientific groups, including astronomers, academics and surveyors, will be exempt."