BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The EU should guarantee youth a job in order to equal their chances.

The EU member states should rely more on public employment services, which should be focused on finding jobs for young people. With government funding, they can work with the private sector to offer decent temporary jobs to young people. This model is common in the Nordic states[1] and other countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland also have similar programs. Youth unemployment is already far higher than for older people. Less than a third of under 25s who were looking for a job in 2010 found one in 2011[2] – this may be due to ageist discrimination against young people, and employers seeking people with experience. People over 25 are also considered as a high risk group. They have little experience so the employer is taking a risk in employing them. There is also a desire for stability; those who already have a family are unlikely to want large changes so employers feel they can bet on them for the long term. If the problem is a lack of experience then this proposal solves the problem. Giving younger people a temporary job and the experience that goes with it will help give everyone an equal chance at getting a job, irrespective of age. Therefore, the EU should step in and help provide jobs for younger people. [1] International Labour Office, ‘Youth guarantees: a response to the youth unemployment crisis?’, International Labour Organization, 2012 http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_209468.pdf [2] European Commission, ‘Youth employment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036
This policy is necessary to avoid a lost generation

Rising youth unemployment can be considered an international timebomb. Young people are the next generation of workers and consumers in the economy. When they are unemployed, the situation can be alarming. This is because of the importance of getting a job early on so as to avoid becoming long term unemployed. The UN Secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has called for stronger policies involving young people[1]. The ILO has warned that youth unemployment can lead to apathy towards government and political instability[2]. The lack of experience in work may cause a lost generation. This must be averted, and the EU is one of the best placed to do this. The temporary work scheme would encourage business to change their attitude and hire more young workers. Having to hire young people, even for a short time, would help break negative stereotypes and often the employers would then offer longer term work. This would help to fill the 2million unfilled vacancies that exist in the EU with young people.[3] [1] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/mar/26/global-youth-unemployment-ticking-time-bomb [2] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/mar/26/global-youth-unemployment-ticking-time-bomb [3] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036
Increased workforce diversity

While we often think of workplace diversity as being about having people from all over the world and both men and women a good age balance is necessary too. By bringing in this policy, younger workers will be in the same workplaces as older employees, and vice versa, making for more workplace diverse. Employees will learn from those with more experience, in addition to the other advantages of a more diverse workforce.[1] One of these is more engagement and engaged workers perform 20% better and are less likely to leave.[2] Another is that young people will contribute new and innovative ways of thinking, with different viewpoints pushing the business forward.[3] Finally a company needs to have all ages in the business to ensure that there are people with experience when older workers retire. Diversity is also crucial for the appearance of a business. The kind of company that attracts a broader pool of individuals means a greater range of talented candidates to choose from. Businesses who create more diverse workplaces perform better. [1] Dutta, Pallab, ‘Importance of Workplace Diversity’, the Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-workplace-diversity-43235.html [2] Anand, Dr. Rohini, ‘How Diversity and Inclusion Drive Employee Engagement’, DiversityInc,  accessed 30/09/13, http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-management/how-diversity-and-inclusion-drives-employee-engagement/ [3] Ingram, David, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace, The Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-diversity-workplace-3041.html
This policy is good for EU economies.

If the government is employing people then it is going to be boosting the economy. Providing a fiscal boost by spending money is one of the most accepted ways of boosting the economy. In this case spending money on temporary workers is good in several ways. First it is a fiscal boost to the economy. The government will be paying the temporary workers. These workers will have more money to spend and will probably mostly spend it rather than saving. This in turn boosts demand for other goods and services so meaning there needs to be more output with the result that some jobs will be made permanent. There is therefore a positive feedback loop. The second way in which this helps the economy is that it is investment. It is investment because the government is paying for young people to gain experience and for companies to be training these temporary workers. The result of this is a more skilled workforce who in the long term will be more productive. There is a final possible benefit. With government paying for workers they are effectively subsidizing firms. Even if they are new trainees the young temporary workers will be providing output for companies at next to no cost. This then makes that firm more competitive against its global competitors.
Temporary employment for youth acts against freedom of choice for businesses

In a free market the core concept is freedom of choice. The consumer chooses what they want to buy. And by the same measure there needs to be freedom of choice for employers. They need to be able to decide what products to make, how to market them, and who to employ. Companies should be looking for those who are best qualified for the job rather than satisfying a government quota to provide temporary contracts to young people. Even if the government is paying for this employee they are still utilising the resources of businesses. Businesses will often have limited space so having some of that space taken up by mandated temporary workers is not the most productive use that the company could be making of that space. It is clear that this would be a ‘make work’ scheme because there are already only around two million vacancies, compared to five and a half million unemployed under 25s, in the entire European Union[1]. Moreover that these vacancies exist shows that the real problem is with matching jobs and workers with the right skills. This is best done by training not temporary, probably unskilled, employment. [1] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036 Eurostat, ‘Unemployment statistics’, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, modified 30 August 2013, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics
This policy would only serve to discriminate against unemployed people older than 25

Even though there are large numbers of young people unemployed, they only make up around a fifth of the total unemployed population. 26.654 million men and women were unemployed in July 2013 in European Union. Only 5.560 million of them are young people.[1] The result then is clearly going to be discriminatory against those who are not among the young. This would simply mean that more qualified, equally unemployed people would be passed over due to their age. It should be remembered that the youth will be more capable of bouncing back when the recession finally ends and there are jobs available. They are more flexible, they have more of the skills necessary for modern work such as knowledge of computers, and they are more willing to retrain to get a job. The result is that when the jobs are available they will be the ones who are able to find work. Older people on the other hand will find it much harder to find another job without government help even when the economy picks up. Young people can wait to get their careers off to a start. Older workers can’t. [1] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment statistics’, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, modified 30 August 2013, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics
The policy is not a long term solution.

Job guarantees for young people may place them in employment for some time at a low cost, but does not offer a permanent solution. The Swedish job guarantee scheme has been criticised for this reason[1]. They will not create a solution based on skills, qualifications and economic growth because employers have little incentive to train up workers who are only temporary. If the company is not looking to expand there will be little point in wasting resources on someone they are not going to take on over the long term. Training has to be the solution to youth unemployment. The government should be training young people to fill the gaps that do exist in the market place such as care workers. When young people have skills that are in demand then they will be able to get full time employment without having to rely on temporary employment schemes to ‘make work’ for them to do. [1] Eurofound, ‘ Youth Guarantee: Experiences from Finland and Sweden’, Eurofound.europa.eu, EF/12/42/EN, 2012, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/42/en/1/EF1242EN.pdf
The EU should guarantee youth a job in order to equal their chances.

Age ‘discrimination’ runs both ways. Many companies operate policies of age discrimination against older workers. Older employees are often likely to have more out of date skills. According to a survey of businesses, the reasons for not hiring older workers are their lack of flexibility and unwillingness to learn new techniques, lack of foreign languages, little knowledge of technology and a dislike of change[1]. Those who are nearing the end of their career and are just as likely to be unable to find a news job because of these problems and are therefore likely to find themselves forced into early retirement. When this happens these people will no longer be counted among the statistics for unemployment so much older unemployment is hidden. If a ‘lack’ of experience is a good reason for the government to provide a job then having the ‘wrong’ experience should be just as good a reason. Focusing just on youth would be wrong. [1] Daskalova, Nadezhda, ‘Company attitudes towards employing older workers’, EWCO,  10 July 2009, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2009/05/BG0905019I.htm
This policy is necessary to avoid a lost generation

Guaranteeing a temporary job for young people is a temporary solution. Having a job for a short period of time will not guarantee more permanent employment. Britain’s Mandatory Work Activity scheme does some of this proposal by having very short term unpaid job placements however a study has shown that having this placement had zero benefit when it comes to getting a job.[1] Even if it did impact on those who took part in the scheme it is no help if it does not increase the number of permanent jobs as there will be the same number of young people in the same small pool. A more long term solution is necessary. This would require more jobs, and more training to ensure that skills fit the jobs that are available. [1] Malik, Shiv, ‘Mandatory work scheme does not improve job chances, research finds’, 13 June 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/13/mandatory-work-scheme-government-research
Highly efficient when operating at high rates

The nuclear power plants have huge energy outputs. That means we can produce energy faster at lower price, due to the high energy density of uranium (we can extract far more energy from it than from any other source). Thanks to this fact, there is no need to build many power plants, since a few nuclear plants can easily supply whole country, for example in Slovakia only 2 power plants supply more than half of electric energy. This is beneficial because residents object to having power generation nearby, building one nuclear plant affects many fewer people than the number of wind turbines that would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity. The nuclear power plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland will produce 13TWh per year[1] equivalent to more than 3000 wind turbines.[2] This has the additional environmental benefit of requiring fewer materials for construction. [1] ‘Olkiluoto 3 – Finland’, Areva, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-2389/ [2] ‘FAQ – Output’, National Wind Watch, http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php, This gives 3.285GWh per year for a turbine which would be more like 4000, but it also states that the wind industry say their turbines work at a higher capacity than that accounted for in their calculation.
Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy

Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength. The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed.[1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power.[2] Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere. [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, http://www.ncbj.gov.pl/en/node/2622 [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013, http://www.iter.org/proj/itermission
Phasing nuclear out would be too expensive

Any phase out of nuclear energy in the EU would be tremendously costly, to an extent indebted Europe cannot afford. First costs stem from closing of nuclear reactors. These would include safely disposing or sealing all radioactive materials involved in production, closing buildings, dismantling the generators etc. In the UK the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that 19 nuclear plants in the UK that are set for decommissioning will cost £70 billion.[1] Secondly, new generation of power plants would need to be built. Suitable places would need to be found, land bought and prepared for construction, power plants and electricity network constructed. These alone would cost sums counted in billions of euros regardless of whether these plants are renewable or not. Moreover, social costs would have to be included, since many highly specialised jobs in the nuclear power industry would be irrecoverably lost. The nuclear power industry in the UK alone employs 44,000 people.[2] [1] BBC News, ‘Nuclear clean-up ‘to cost £70bn’’, 30 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm [2] Cogent, ‘Nuclear industry profile’, 2013, http://www.cogent-ssc.com/industry/nuclear/industry_profile.php
Nuclear energy is non-renewable source

The main source, or fuel, for production of nuclear energy does not have to be uranium, thorium can be used. While the number of reactors may increase the consumption of uranium may well actually go down as the next generation of reactors will get more energy from the uranium they use. More specifically fourth generation reactors would reuse the uranium multiple times up to the point where they may be more than a hundred times more fuel efficient than current reactors.[1] Furthermore, uranium is not mined only in one specific country, but in variety of countries (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, United States). As we can see, these countries differ from each other in any way – political situation, regime, relationships with other countries etc. Therefore, even in the case of war with one or few countries from where uranium is obtained, the supply can be established from other sources, other countries. Therefore, there is a very little possibility of diplomatic pressure, since uranium can be obtained from variety of sources. Together with thorium, which can be obtained from countries like India, Turkey, Brazil, EU can be considered as independent from any one source of uranium or thorium. [1] Hansen, Dr. James, ‘4th Generation Nuclear Power’, OSS, 18 January 2009, http://ossfoundation.us/projects/energy/nuclear
Nuclear energy goes against Green World

First of all, power plants operating on renewable resources are not as green as one might think. Hydroelectric and tidal power can harm water ecosystems, wind turbines can harm wildlife and solar plants need a large space to be built on and are only really efficient in deserts. Nuclear power stations are relatively green since they do not primary produce any “dirty gases.” The only problem is mining uranium and the nuclear waste, which is increasingly able to be recycled and potentially reused as fuel for more modern nuclear plants. Furthermore, gas stations are operating with non-renewable source of energy – natural gas. Therefore, when speaking about efficiency -nuclear power stations are generally more effective than gas power stations[1][2] – it is better for environment to operate on few nuclear power stations rather than on many of gas power stations. Nuclear power stations are not flexible, but they can represent the base of needed energy, which does not fluctuate, and the rest of needed energy which varies in time may be supplied with power plants operating on renewable sources and few power plants operating on other non-renewable sources. [1] ‘Cooling power plants’, World Nuclear Association, September 2012, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Cooling-Power-Plants/ [2] Kirk T. 2007 Physics IB Study Guide, Oxford University Press, p.68
Nuclear energy in Europe is currently considered to be dangerous

The essence of the argument may be correct, however, the basis is not. The stress tests were to great extent based on unrealistic threats like strong earthquake (which are extremely rare – almost non-existent in Europe away from the Mediterranean) or crash of big airplane. In these cases truly, lives could be endangered, however, the possibility of these cases ever occurring is nearly zero. Even if some investments in safety measures were needed (like in case of the safety systems in case of blackout) implementation of those would be substantially lower than phasing out nuclear reactors and building a replacement capacity of equal capacity from renewable sources.
Highly efficient when operating at high rates

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros.[1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost.[2] [1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885 [2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost
Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy

The most recent power plants such as Olkiluoto are third generation plants. Fourth generation plants are still decades away. Yes research into Fusion must continue but the plant that is being built is simply a test plant and even it won’t be fully testing until 2027, it would be decades after that before any commercial plants come into operation even if everything works. Research into both types but particularly fusion are separate from the nuclear power plants that Europe currently has. These could all be shut down without any impact on research. Moreover why spend billions on research when we already have technologies that provide clean electricity?
Phasing nuclear out would be too expensive

The phase out of the nuclear power stations may be costly; however, it will happen sooner or later anyway. Nuclear stations are constantly phased out and new, more advanced plants are built in their place. Old plants require constant investment in safety measures. The costs are thus inevitable. Abandoning nuclear power in many cases need only involve committing to not build more nuclear plants. However, even if the costs of phasing out were higher than costs of sustaining network of nuclear plants, the gain from more safe, more environmental friendly energy would outweigh the harms. Concerning the social costs, workers in nuclear power plants could find jobs in broader energy production market, since the technical requirements for jobs are not that different in different power plants and there would still be demand for jobs in the energy sector.