BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Regulating the Internet is a means for governments to spy on their citizens

Governments around the world are tracking their citizens’ activities online.[1] They can use all sorts of techniques, like automated data-mining (i.e. via trawling your Facebook and Twitter accounts) and deep packet inspection of each electronic message sent (i.e. intercepting and reading your email). All these methods are violations of important principles. The automated data-mining violates the principle that people shouldn’t be investigated by their governments unless there is warrant for it (so there is reasonable suspicion that they have been involved in a crime). Also, data mining creates many false positives, leading to citizens being thoroughly investigated without probable cause.[2]  Deep packet inspection violates people’s fundamental right to secrecy of correspondence, which is a violation of privacy. The problem with these government policies is that they’re hard to control – even in democracies: much of the spying is done by intelligence agencies, which are often able to evade democratic control on account of the need for secrecy rather than transparency.[3]    [1] Reporters Without Borders, Enemies of the internet, 2012 and Kingsley, Britain won’t be the only country snooping on people’s internet use, 2012 [2] US Researchers Decide Spying On Citizens Is Bad, 2008 [3] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘NSA Spying’.
Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship

As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence.[1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more,[2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism. As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others.[3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world.[4] [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012 [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009. [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012 [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006
Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship

Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results[1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors.[2] This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information,[3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.[5] [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005 [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010 [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012 [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003
Internet regulation is an attempt by big interest groups to regulate the internet in their favour

With the government as final decision-maker, at least the citizens and consumers have some say Regulatory capture does sometimes happen and when it does, it’s bad. But the risk of regulatory capture isn’t a sufficient argument to keep the government away from regulating the internet, because governments can also protect citizens and consumers from big companies. An example is the net neutrality debate. Content providers could have started paying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to have their websites load faster than any other website (paid prioritization). Entertainment companies that also provide internet are currently being investigated for not allowing their competitors in the entertainment segment access to their network as internet provider.[1] This threatens the freedom of choice of the consumer, which is why governments have stepped in to ensure that companies aren’t allowed favour some websites.[2] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet, it couldn’t have stood up for consumers’ and citizens’ rights like this. [1] DOJ Realizes That Comcast & Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu & Netflix, 2012 [2] Voskamp, ‘GOP Attempt to Overturn FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Fails in Senate’, 2011
The current House of Lords is undemocratic

Although the House of Lords may not be a true expression of ‘democracy’, it has a positive function in the governing of the country and is based in a tradition and heritage that the people of Britain should not try and abandon. One could argue in return that those very decisions and wars that Britain is in involved in to defend ‘democracy’ do not reflect the will of the people and that modern states are not true democracies at all. In practice the British people have a limited say in how the country is run and it would be naïve to champion the idea of Britain being a ‘democracy’ by ignoring the existence of such an overpowering state machine.
The House of Lords allows a number of experts to influence government policy.

Although a small number of members of the House of Lords are industry experts the fact remains that there is still a proportion of hereditary peers, which guarantees no expertise whatsoever. Furthermore political parties can elect peers which is simply absurd, parties should not be able to appoint their own watch dogs: David Cameron has already appointed 117 peers in less than a year.[1] [1] Barrett, Matthew, ‘Full House: Cameron warned against appointing more peers’, (20 April 2011) viewed 1 June 2011 http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/04/house-full.html#more
Reform would make the House of Lords simply a mirror of the House of Commons

The House of Lords could be elected on a longer term basis than the House of Commons – ten years for example. Furthermore elections could be staggered during this period so the House of Lords would never simply be a ‘mirror’. Furthermore the House of Lords should be democratically elected and it should reflect the will of the people, whether or not this is a ‘mirror’ of the other house is not relevant as it reflects the results in a fair vote. Similarly if elected mid-term and the House of Lords reflected mid-term unpopularity of the ruling party, then this too would be the will of the people – any clashes would be part of the democratic process.
Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government.

The fear of controversy or of an ‘unworkable’ government is not reason to stall reform. If we adopt the stance that a government knows best or if we excuse a government to override the will of its people in the name of the greater good, then we pave the way for the misuse of power. Democracy should be held in the highest regard, only free societies can be secure and developed as shown in numerous historic example. Only fundamentally free societies can be fundamentally secure and developed, which is backed up by many examples from history.[1] Democracy has proved itself as better than the alternatives, where autocracies, oligarchies and theocracies have failed, democracy has prevailed. [1] Grizold, Professor Anton, Peacebuilding and the impact of post-conflict areas on European security (Department of Political Science, University of Ljublana)
The House of Lords is out of touch with the electorate.

The 19th century US President Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy should be ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’[1] Therefore peers who sit in the house based on noble birth right or their membership of the Church of England,  that is itself largely ignored by the people, do not represent the people of Britain. [1] A' Short Definition of Democracy’, Democracy-building.info, 2005, viewed on 1 June 2011 http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html
The House of Lords has an inbuilt conservative majority.

The traditional provenance of the House of Lords translates to an in-built Conservative majority. Even so called Liberal and Labour peers are usually conservative in their opinions. They represent a social and economic elite and seem to flaunt diversity monitoring in a house with only 181 female peers and a staggeringly low 31 peers from ethnic minorities.[1] This unfair skew in the favour of the conservative has the power to slow down and revise legislation and is a gross misrepresentation of the British population. The House of Lords should be reformed in order to better reflect the British people so that their actions and decisions benefit the whole of society and not just their own. [1] Smith, Ben, ‘Ethnic Minorities in Politics, Government and Public Life’, House of Commons Library (18 November 2008) and see http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-members/ viewed 1 June 2011
Reform would strengthen the House of Lords

Reform of the House of Lords would strengthen the legitimacy of the house and therefore improve its functions. By electing the second chamber they would gain the legitimacy to not simply stall bills but reject them all together or drafts bills of their own, thus facilitating a more dynamic government, able to change. Using a different electoral technique, for example Proportional Representation with members sitting for longer periods would allow them to still be of a different composition to the House of Commons and not sway to short-term political popularity. Electing different portions at different times would also guard against a freak landslide result affecting the house’s balance. By creating a worthy opposition to the House of Commons all issues would be debated and decided upon more fairly and government would be more closely monitored.
The current House of Lords is undemocratic

The House of Lords is undemocratic. Currently the members of the House of Lords consist of hereditary peers, senior members of the Church of England and those appointed by political parties. Whether or not there is an abuse of power or the outcome of the House of Lords is beside the point – its very existence in its current state is undemocratic and as such it should be reformed. It seems nonsensical that a country that lectures to the rest of the world the importance of democracy, to the point of war, should overlook such a grievance in their own society.
Reform would make the House of Lords simply a mirror of the House of Commons

An elected House, even one elected every ten years, would still think about policies that are popular in the short term rather than the long-term welfare of the country, making it closer to the House of Commons in its interest and reducing its role as a balance. By subjecting the second chamber to election there would be two outcomes: if elected at the same time the House of Lords would simply become a mirror-image of the House of Commons rendering it pointless, if elected mid-term the composition of the House of Lords would reflect the tendency for a government to be unpopular mid-term, thus creating gridlock and making the system unworkable. Reform of the House of Lords is impractical and undesirable.
Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government.

One should not assume that the lack of democracy is wholly negative; do the majority of people know what is best for the country? Or do industry experts? Could the public reach a consensus on important governing decisions? Government can see the bigger picture and balance the needs of different interest groups to produce the best outcome for all: ‘true’ democracy is simply unworkable and can too easily lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as described by Fareed Zakaria.[1] Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is to look at the two champions of democracy: France and America. France overturned its monarchy and government in the name of liberty, yet quickly descended into mob-rule and violence; ‘democracy’ had a bloody birth.[2] Similarly one only has to look at the appalling levels of inequality within the United States of America to question the nature and worth of ‘democracy’.[3] So if the nature of government is not simply to fulfil notions of ‘democracy’ but to ensure good governance then the House of Lords is still an important institution. [1] Zakaria, Fareed, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad (New York, 2003) [2] Doyle, William, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001) [3] American Political Science Association Task Force, ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2004)
The public is apathetic to reform.

Whether or not reform of the House of Lords should be a top priority in the current economic climate is debateable, let alone whether or not a coalition government would be able to initiate and drive through such measures. Attempts to reform the House of Lords have been delayed time and time again, demonstrating the House of Commons’ reservations on change.[1] A feeling that is no doubt echoed in popular British opinion – as demonstrated by the recent outcome of the Alternative Vote – the public are either adverse to the idea of change or apathetic to it.[2] [1] Summers, Deborah,  ‘Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords’, The Guardian (27 January, 2009), viewed on 1 June 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/27/house-of-lords-reform [2] BBC News, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote, 7 May 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573
Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process

Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies. Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets[1], i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three.[2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno,[3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own. This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion. [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007, http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/glam.pdf [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151 http://www.princeton.edu/~mprior/Prior2003.Soft%20News.pdf [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/mbaum/documents/BaumJamison_UncorrectedProofs.pdf
This is an unjust use of unelected power

Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama.[1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so. Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information). This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due. [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012, http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/garthwaite/htm/celebrityendorsements_garthwaitemoore.pdf
People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas.

Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas. Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies. This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect. All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development.
Celebrity involvement can act as a ‘gateway’ to get more people engaged in politics

Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote. As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000.[1] Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes. [1] Brubaker, Jennifer, ‘It doesn’t affect my vote: Third-person effects of Celebrity Endorsements on College Voters in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections’, American Communication Journal, Vol.13 Issue 2, Summer 2011, p.8. http://ac-journal.org/journal/pubs/2011/summer/brubaker_Proof.pdf
Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised

Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries. Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics[1]. Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans[2]) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned). [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206 [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H42pGSh8IIYC
Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests

There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem. Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact. Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed[1], Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction”[2], where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis. [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9429173/Gay-marriage-A-pointless-distraction.html