BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The current system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals.

It is unfair that those who repeatedly re-offend should be treated in the same manner as those who have committed one offence; a singular offence could mark a mistake or accident in the defendant’s choices, but repeated criminal acts mark a habit and a lack of regret for past crimes. Failing to take past convictions into account can lead to many dangerous offenders being underestimated by the jury, and so released. This is particularly pertinent in cases of child molestation, where child molesters have a particularly high rate of re-offending – expected to be even ‘larger than the reported 50 per cent’ - but ‘only a small proportion of sexual offences against children result in a conviction’. This conviction rate, however, does rise for ‘those with a history of prior sexual offences’[1].                 Under the current conditions, this system is unfairly weighted against the innocent victims of repeated crime. A higher conviction rate, informed by the knowledge of previous offences, helps to reach justice for these victims and their families, as well as promoting justice and the safety of the general public who find it frustrating that so many dangerous offenders are released without appropriate conviction[2]. Moreover, jurors themselves lose confidence in the justice system when they find out that they have just acquitted a defendant who has committed a similar crime before. One notable example of this was series of trials of Kirk Reid, who committed many sexual assaults against women including several instances of rape and who was ‘wrongfully acquitted’ of his first offence in 1996. Not only did his victim lose all sense of hope in the justice system – she had faced her attacked and been discredited – but one of the jurors at the trial who believed that he was guilty went on to criticise the justice system itself[3]. The current system seriously risks acquitting criminals who have already committed similar crimes; it is time to rebalance the justice system to acknowledge the needs of the victims who suffer through wrongful acquittal of their attackers. [1]Victims of Violence, ‘Research – Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse’, 28 February 2011 [2]Hughes, David, ‘Sex offenders to lose right to get out of jail early’, The Daily Mail [3]Lette, Kathy, ‘For sexual assault, justice is on trial’, The Guardian, 1 July 2010
Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.

Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed[1]. This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media. [1]Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012.
Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system.

At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness[1]. However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible. [1]The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.
We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.

Although we recognise that juries can provide valuable insight and represent the will of the general public in court cases[1] (and especially the communities in which the crimes occurred[2]), there is also recognition that juries can be subject to bias[3]. Britain has even suggested plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in order to prevent undue bias from affecting court cases[4]. Elsewhere, experts are debating over whether jurors should learn about ‘a victim’s sexual history in rape cases where the defendant asserts that the accuser consented to sex, or a victim's propensity for violence in murder cases where the accused claims self-defense’[5] because of fears that it might cause juror bias. We do not grant ultimate knowledge to jurors, nor should we; it endangers the potential for an unbiased trial. [1]Lawson Neal, and Simms, Andrew, ‘A People’s Jury of a thousand angry citizens’, The Guardian, 31 July 2011. [2]New Jersey Courts, ‘Welcome to the New Jersey Court System’, judiciary.state.nj.us, 2011. [3]Howard  Nations, ‘Overcoming Jury Bias’ [4]Davies, Patricia Wynn, ‘Plans to restrict right to trial by jury condemned’, The Independent, 28 February 1997. [5]Silverglate, Harvey A., and Poulson, Dan, ‘Getting Real at the SJC’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 30 May 2005.
Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

This motion removes the incentive for police to conduct vigorous investigations. Given the increasing pressure on policemen and women to gain convictions[1], this motion will mean that their best chance of obtaining those convictions is simply to accuse those whose backgrounds could feasibly lead a jury to believe that they are not only capable of crime, but have committed the crime in question. Subsequently, the real culprits may be left to go free as suspicion is routinely pointed towards those who already have a criminal record. Given that poor police investigation[2] and poor case preparation by the prosecution[3] are currently a large source of dissatisfaction with the justice system, it is important to prevent either police or the prosecution from becoming dependent on the negative records of the defendants rather than properly fulfilling their roles. [1]Bushywood, ‘CPS - Crown Persecution Service’. [2] The Guardian, ‘The cost of poor policing’. 11 October 2010 [3]Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice at Risk: War Crimes Trials in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro’, 14 October 2004, D1607.
Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict.

The verdict of an individual trial should not be predicated on trials which have already been carried out and concluded. The evidence which is being ‘withheld’ here is in fact irrelevant to the case at hand. While these countries recognise that juries have great value as a representative of the people[1], it is also important to recognise that people are vulnerable to bias – as shown by the huge increase in convictions when previous offences are disclosed[2]. The benefits of disclosing past convictions is outweighed by the benefits of the jury remaining impartial as far as possible, as this is the best way to reach a fair and just verdict. [1] Tickner, Joel and Ketelsen, Lee, ‘Democracy and the Precautionary Principle’, The Networker, Vol. 6 No.3, May 2001 [2]The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003
Defendants who are innocent will be protected

Revealing past convictions could actually be detrimental in providing an accurate character profile of the defendant or prosecution witness, particularly if the defendant has previously been convicted but has also had successful rehabilitation. This disclosure undermines a key principle of the justice system – rehabilitation and reintegration[1] – by undermining any possibility that they could have changed their lifestyle or altered their character. As such, while it might serve one point of court, it seriously undermines other principles of justice which should not be compromised for such a small benefit. [1]law.jrank.org, ‘Rehabilitation – What is Rehabilitation?’
The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial.

Unfortunately, empirical evidence shows that past offenders are more likely to commit further offences[1]. Revealing past convictions could be a good indicator of how likely it is that the defendant could have committed a crime, particularly if it is a similar crime to one committed in the past. Acquitting a defendant of a crime which they had previously committed could easily create public outrage and discredit the justice system; it is only fair that past convictions should be taken into account alongside the rest of the evidence. [1]Edwards, Richard, ‘Half of all criminals re-offend within a year’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2008.
Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict.

It is nonsensical to withhold evidence from a jury that might be necessary for them to reach an accurate verdict. Just because their verdict might be more prone to conviction rather than acquittal does not necessarily mean that this is an unfair or even inaccurate conclusion; given that violent offenders are likely to re-offend[1], it may illuminate the truth rather than confuse it. Jurors should be allowed to weigh the relevance of previous convictions and compare them with the accusations of the trail at hand. A criminal justice system which currently relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision[2] cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence from them without innately biasing the trial itself. As the UK Government’s White Paper states, ‘we want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible . . . magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so’[3]. If we cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the entire use of juries in the criminal justice system should be reconsidered. [1]CBC News, ‘Getting out of prison’, March 2008. [2]Direct Gov, ‘Jury service – what happens in court and after the trial’, 10 October 2011. [3]CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.
Defendants who are innocent will be protected

This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’[1]; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front. [1]CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.
The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial.

By projecting past convictions on to a new case, this disclosure greatly weakens the presumption of innocence which is the defendant’s right[1]. It is the jury’s duty to form a verdict based on the relevant case, and it should not be dependent on events from the defendant’s past life which may be completely irrelevant to the case in hand. Many people who mistakenly committed a crime at one point in their life realise that it was a mistake and do not go on to re-offend, particularly if they have received help or treatment from the state[2]. Even if the defendant has repeatedly committed crimes in their past, it does not necessarily follow that they are guilty of the particular offence which has gone to trial. [1]Criminal Defense Department’ Every person is PRESUMED INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, Parkes Law Group, 6 May 2011 [2]Public Safety Canada, ‘Treatment for sex offenders’, 28 December 2007
State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper

Since Sputnik was launched in 1957, the space race has given rise to an infrastructure, particularly in the United States and Russia, which can be exploited for economies of scale. The cost of developing shuttles and training astronauts is far cheaper in Cape Carnarvon where the necessary equipment and skills lie to do so. Furthermore, the International Space Station costs upwards of $100 billion, however it serves as a terminal where shuttles can thereafter be pointed to any corner of the universe1. The potential therefore is to save costs by using the existence of the ISS as a stepping stone to elsewhere. To not use fifty years of space development and technology is to render all that investment meaningless. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes improve this
The 'space race' fuels nationalistic sentiment and antagonism

Sending humans into space or to other planets so that they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before. China's manned program is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime's huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush's pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars program was a direct response. This is damaging not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into greater international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space, thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield.
The cost of space exploration exceeds the positive benefits

NASA during the 1990s spent over a third of its budget simply keeping the ISS manned and the Space Shuttle working1; it will now spend $60 million per seat to use Russian transport to the ISS2. The vast majority of its spending on scientific research comes through ground based research, telescopes and unmanned missions. China has made no claims that there is a scientific benefit to its manned mission and nor has Russia in recent years. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. NASA made a lot of noise about growing zero-gravity protein crystals as a potential cure for cancer when it was trying to justify building the ISS but has since dropped the claims as experiments have shown the claims were overstated. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. 1 New York Times. (1995, March 6). Is NASA Among the Truly Needy? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times 2 Stein, K. (2011, May 18). Critical juncture for U.S. human spaceflight. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Examiner: improve this
Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes

High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford; U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman stated in the wake of President Bush's 2004 proposals that money was needed 'right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security.'1 Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement. 1 Pop, V. (2004, January 19). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Space Daily: improve this
State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper

If only it were true. The typical shuttle mission to the International Space Station costs $500-700 million. Private individuals, space tourists, have managed it for just $20 million a head1. Therefore, there is little in the argument that the existing space infrastructure is driving costs down. Furthermore, whilst the ISS has been justified as a terminal for the shuttles, the shuttles themselves have been justified as means to reach the space shuttle; a circular argument that offers little hope to the space explorer. Moreover, despite over fifty years of investment, NASA specifically has maintained a shuttle program at the expense of new materials, new fuels and innovative concepts1. As such, the technology has not advanced significantly since the original missions to the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The infrastructure, in this case, appears to have been more of a hindrance and intellectual barrier to development and cost-cutting than an aid. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes improve this
The 'space race' fuels nationalistic sentiment and antagonism

Since the "historic handshake in space" when a US Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules docked in 1975, the two countries have in fact grown increasingly close. This relationship involves sharing technology (which is almost all 'dual use' i.e. it could be used for military purposes as well as civilian, thus requiring a high degree of trust), scientific knowledge and working side-by-side to build and support the ISS. With the involvement of the 11 member states of the European Space Agency as well as Canada, Japan and Brazil in the project, space is one of the few spheres where governments have been able to put aside their differences in pursuit of something more fundamentally important to humanity.
The cost of space exploration exceeds the positive benefits

The positive benefits of space exploration are innumerable and profound. As Joan Vernikos describes, '43 countries now have their own observing or communications satellites in Earth orbit.' Such satellites provide the G.P.S that directs our transport, meteorological forecasts, global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence for our national security1. Furthermore, the common misconception that NASA has a huge budget is just that; in 2007, the NASA budget of $16.3 billion was dwarfed by the overall G.D.P of $13 trillion1. 1 Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics: improve this
Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes

Space exploration gives back more than it takes from the treasury. Dr. Joan Vernikos, a former head of NASA Life Sciences, argues ‘economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment…royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.' Furthermore, as Keith Cowing points out, the funding for space exploration is insignificant compared to our other discretionary spending: ‘Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol (in 2006); We spend $10 million a month in Iraq; all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year." Cowing also points out the fact that ‘the money is spent on the earth – it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does’ (Dubner, 2008).[1 [1] Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics
Maintaining the value of the degree

Employers measure degrees by the academic results they indicate. The level of political engagement of the individuals is not critical – or even relevant – to that measure. In a global market of tens of millions of students graduating every year[i] an increase of a few thousand in those graduating from top universities will do little to dilute their iconic brands while taking advantage of communications technologies to justify their global reputation. University Senates determine whether degrees can be awarded in their name and it is scarcely in their interest to damage their own reputation.[ii] [i] There are approximately 150 million students in the world and for the purposes of this debate, that number has simply been divided by three. Source material can be found here. [ii] Jones et al., ‘The Academic Senate and University Governance in Canada’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol.XXXIV, No.2, 2004, pp.35-68, p.50, 57
Argument One: Contact leads to the dissemination of values

There is gradualism and then there is inertia. Refusing to cooperate with governments where individuals can be banned from addressing a group of students would seem to be setting the bar relatively low. In this particular instance, the bar doesn’t appear to have been set anywhere. The example given by opposition is of one between states, this is between state actors and organisations who rely on the free expression of ideas as part of their raison d’etre.
Universities should exchange ideas not impose them

Of all possible institutions, for a university to suggest that it is not open to defending its ideas rather than insisting that they be artificially imported seems counter-intuitive. As Asian and European intellectual traditions increasingly interact as a result of economic interaction there are going to be clashes between and attempts to integrate the Confucian and Socratic approaches[i]. Part of that is the relationship between academia and the state. Western institutions seeking to establish themselves as a presence in Asia should at least be open to the idea that a different approach may have something to offer. After all a willingness to accept new ideas and attitudes is key to the ethic of any university – the assumption that such an exchange would only flow in one direction is astonishingly arrogant. [i] This is true at every level, including simple things such as the approach taken by students to their studies. Inevitably, universities have responded to these in different ways in the two traditions. Paton, Michael, ‘Asian Students, Critical Thinking and English as an Academic Lingua Franca’, Analytic teaching and philosophical praxis, Vol.32, No.1, pp.27-39  p.28