BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Removing Tax Cuts for the Rich Promotes Equality.

As is mentioned in argument two of the opposition, if tax increases for the rich cause them to leave the country then it is entirely possible that this will lead to even less parity between those left behind and the poor who have to make do with even less tax revenue through redistribution.   Further, the rich are often the people who provide work for the poor through investments in enterprise and new products. Given that this is true, lower taxes for the rich often benefit the poor by allowing the rich to invest more and take more risks with their money. This often leads to innovations and the creation of new goods and services that often the poor may buy into and this allows them to improve the quality of their lives in the long run.[1] [1] Ortman, Johnathan, “Tax Incentives for Entrepreneurship and Innovation.” Entrepeneurship.org http://www.entrepreneurship.org/en/policy-forum/tax-incentives-for-entre...
Expiring Tax Cuts Would Cause a Double Dip Recession

As mentioned, tax cuts for the rich offer the least direct stimulus owing to the small percentage of their income that the wealthiest Americans spend on consumption. Often what is taxed is money that simply sits in bank accounts accruing interest. Given, then, that the super rich are a tiny portion of the population, despite their wealth, the immediate change the policy will have on the economy is fairly negligible.   Opposition may talk about investment in businesses, however the risks that businesses take and their benefits are only truly reflected in long term statistics, which are irrelevant in the case of recession prevention as in a few years it is likely that there will not be fears of another recession.[1] [1] “A Real Debate On Taxes,” New York Times, 23/08/2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/opinion/24tue1.html
Expiring the Tax Cut Would Harm Small Business

Firstly, the harm to small business from such tax cuts could easily be mitigated by providing some measure of exception for small business owners. The U.S. already provides subsidies for small businesses that show signs of innovation and as such it seems logical that another exception could be added to prevent harm to small businesses.   Further, less that 2% of tax returns citing small business revenue come from the top two tax brackets. Most small business owners simply aren’t part of the top income bracket and further most investors in the top income brackets do not rely on small business revenue as their primary source of income. The harm should this policy go through without exception is much smaller than portrayed by opposition.   Further, the focus on small business is also a result of a “supply side” economic policy that has failed. Whilst the Bush system focused mainly upon supporting the private sector in order to create jobs, it has emerged after eight years to have had almost no effect on the number of Americans being employed, with most changes coming from government hiring. Small business makes a contribution to the economy, but nowhere near the level that opposition need for the argument to hold water.[1] [1] Gale, William, “Five Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts,” Washington Post, 01/08/2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR201007...
Killing is worse than letting someone die

People die in accidents and by natural cause all of the time. However, it is much rarer for a person to be actively involved in another person’s death. If one chooses to pull the lever and change the course of the train then one is actively participating in the death of the one person. The other option involves no action; it simply allows a set of events to run their course. There is, therefore, a greater responsibility involved in being actively involved in the death of another.
The act of killing is emotionally damaging

To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever.
As humans we try to save as many people as possible

People suffer unfortunate deaths on a daily basis. The fact that people die in accidents does not necessarily mean that their right to life has been violated. Therefore, if one lets the train run its course five people will suffer an unfortunate accident. The real violation of rights in this situation is the action of changing the course of the train. The single person on the track is in no immediate danger. However, by changing the course of the train one is actively participating in the removal of that person’s life. If we believe that a person has the right not to be murdered then pulling the lever is a violation of that right.
Killing one person is the rational choice

We do not always choose the most rational course of action. If we do not know anything about who we are in the situation we still know that if the one person is killed then their life has been unfairly ended. If the five people die then we know that this is an accident. Therefore we might still choose to allow the five people to die. This is because we can still decide the right or wrong of the situation and choose not to make the decision based on self interest.
We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not

Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd.
We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable

The specific circumstances of every case need to be taken into account. In this case someone will definitely lose their life and one’s decision is to decide how to minimize the damage done. It is wrong to suggest that this is an act of killing; instead it is an attempt to reduce the number of deaths in a tragic situation. Pulling the lever is not an act that the person would do if the five people were not tied down and so it is very different from an act of intentional murder.
As humans we try to save as many people as possible

There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.
Killing one person is the rational choice

The philosopher John Rawls came up with a thought experiment to discover the right way to organize a society. When people talk about how society should be organized they generally take their own situation and interests into account. Rawls asked us to imagine a situation in which we do not know anything at all about our own lives and then try to organize society? Without knowing anything about our wealth, intelligence, personality, race, gender, religion etc., we would create the fairest society. This is because without knowing who we are we have no idea where we will be in society once it has been organized. So, in order to make sure we have the best chance to be treated fairly we create a society in which all people are treated fairly. The same experiment can be applied to the train problem. If we do not know anything about who we are in the experiment we would chose to kill the one person. This is because there is a greater chance of us being one of the five people and so killing the one person gives us the best chance to survive.
We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not

It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.
We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable

As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations.
More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one

To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.
Killing is worse than letting someone die

Choosing not to act in the situation is still a choice and does not remove the responsibility in the situation. If someone stands by and watched as another person drowns, even though they could have rescued them, then they are no better than the murderer who participates in a person’s death. The idea that active killing only relates to taking action to cause death is wrong. When one has the ability to prevent death then one is actively involved in the situation whether one chooses to accept it or not.
We instinctively know killing is wrong

Our feelings are clouded by the way the situation is presented and so we cannot use feeling as a way to decide what to do. For example, most people instinctively say that they would pull the lever to save the five people. However, if the case is presented differently and to save the five people you have to push a man onto the track to stop the train then most people will say not to do it. The two situations are morally identical; the only change is the physical act that needs to be done. Therefore it is clear that our feelings can change despite the principle staying the same.
More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one

When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved.
Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds

Coca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned.[1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.'[2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community.[3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level. [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14morales.html [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf [3] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.
Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states

Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away.[1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.”[2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest.[3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining.[4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic.[5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding  its illegal use in cocaine. [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14morales.html [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/international/americas/12bolivia.html?... [3] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/international/americas/12bolivia.html?... [4] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf [5] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf
Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine

Cocaine can be readily extracted from the coca leaf. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf.”[1] The active ingredient in coca leaf is the same as in cocaine, just more concentrated. Because the raw material of coca and its more potent relative cocaine are so closely aligned, it is impossible to disassociate the two, and so any attempt to consider cocaine a narcotic and stop its spread must also forbid coca. Globally, cocaine is also most produced where coca is legal, and this is a clear correlation. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. However, as Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, cocaine production has shot up, despite his efforts to fight cocaine production.[2] Thus legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. Legalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf would therefore simply make cocaine more readily available, thus increasing all the harms that come with widespread cocaine use in society. [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.     [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/international/americas/12bolivia.html?...
Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy

The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in 2011 that exceptions for Bolivia would undermine international narcotics control efforts: “[Allowing coca] would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system, undoing the good work of governments over many years.”[1] A US official said in January of 2011: “there is evidence to suggest that a substantial percentage” of the increased coca production in Bolivia over the past several years, registered in U.N. surveys, “has indeed gone into the network and the marketplace for cocaine.”[2] These examples thus show that legalizing coca cultivation would undermine the wider war on drugs, because it shifts the policy away from one of eradicating crops which could be turned into narcotics and instead turns towards making them acceptable on the global market. It encourages countries to take eradication efforts less seriously, and seemingly undermines the commitment of the international community to the war on drugs, once it gives in on this narcotic. This will make not just cocaine but many other drugs more widely available, leading to even more ruined lives through drug abuse. [1] M&C News. “Bolivia undermines global anti-drug efforts, UN warns”. M&C News. Jul 5, 2011. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/americas/news/article_1649362.php... [2] Associated Press. “U.S. to fight Bolivia on allowing coca-leaf chewing”. The Portland Press Herald. January 19 2011. http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/u_s_-to-fight-bolivia-on-all...
Coca chewing is harmful and should be proscribed

The original decision to ban coca chewing was based on evidence that this was indeed harmful to human health. A 1950 report elaborated by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Coca Leaf with a mandate from ECOSOC states that: "We believe that the daily, inveterate use of coca leaves by chewing ... is thoroughly noxious and therefore detrimental."[1] Therefore the risk of health harms should not be dismissed or undermined. Coca is also different to caffeine and other similar products in in its capacity to be diverted to highly potent, dangerous, and damaging use in cocaine. Therefore it has unique health considerations which make its prohibition acceptable. [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.
Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds

Simply arguing that because something is a 'tradition' that it should be legalized is a nonsensical argument. Traditions need to stand on their own merits, beyond the simple fact that people have done it in the past, as anyone would recognise that a great many things done in the past were not desirable, and therefore longevity does not equal desirability. Moreover, substances have never been legalized simply because some religions place spiritual connotations upon their use. For example, many members of the Rastafarian Movement and some Muslim Sufi groups claim that using cannabis has spiritual value and is important to understanding mystic truths, but cannabis has not been legalized as a result.[1] This is because, on balance, the harms of legalization outweigh our perception of its claimed benefits, and the same is true of the coca leaf. It is also important to note that the prized position of coca in Andean culture owes much to the lucrative nature of the international cocaine market, and thus this cultural value cannot be entirely 'unbundled' from cocaine use in the West.[2] [1] Ernest, Abel. “A Comprehensive Guide to Cannabis Literature”. Greenwood Press. 1979.; [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf
Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states

Medical uses of the coca leaf are already legal under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.[1]. The coca plant has also never been proven to be a better ingredient in these varied domestic products than other plants, and other plants may even perform even better as ingredients.[2] There is therefore no compelling reason to believe that its global cultivation would result in any meaningful economic boost or better products on the market. Saving lives from being ruined by cocaine is more important than nay minor boost we might get from other coca products. [1] United Nations. “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961”. United Nations. 1961, amended 1972. http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf
Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production.[1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available. [1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. http://www.kdrink.com/fitxers/debate13.pdf