BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deterrent – Governments should do everything they can to discourage smoking, rather than accepting i...

People start smoking even though they know it is an expensive and (literally) malodorous habit, and that it will probably kill them. People then continue to smoke even as short-term use stains their teeth, causes them to be short of breath, and so-on. Deterrents do not work. Furthermore, if there were enough ill smokers to create a massive demand for private healthcare (which there would be) then the privatisation process would limit the deterrent value of this policy. \ From the point of view of potential smokers, healthcare costs might be higher in many years’ time, but not prohibitively so. Cigarette prices may be dropping anyway to compensate (as above); and having already decided to shorten one’s life considerably, these are really comparatively minor worries in the first place. Some deterrent.
Furthering Social Inequality? – More deprived socio-economic groups are more likely to smoke. This ...

This policy is as much about privatising healthcare for the poor as for smokers. Working class men are more likely to contract cancer. In the UK, they are four times more likely. This is not merely because they smoke more – although this is a problem in and of itself – it is also because their lifestyles expose them to more potential harms. This point fits in with the practical issues in point 6. Working class people who do not smoke would never choose to have their friends and family suffer. Further, the cost of treating them privately would be likely filter down to friends and family anyway.
Practical Issues -- This is primarily a debate about a principle. Practical hurdles are secondary t...

This policy is beset with huge practical obstacles. These are significant not merely because they undermine implementation, but because systemic flaws undermine the idea that healthcare rights are recognised on the same ‘fair’ bases for everyone – and this is the first principle of the proposition’s case. There are probably three main issues:\ First, the extent to which care is denied is questionable. Does the proposition model include denying palliative care? If it does, this literally means leaving people to suffer agonising pain in emergencies while they try to locate private prescription painkillers, if they can afford them. Further, does it include denying emergency procedures such as resuscitation in the case of a heart attack? If it does, where are patients supposed to go? Private emergency rooms are few and far between, or non-existent, in many countries – never mind private ambulances.\ Second, issues of timing are relevant to this debate. The proposition’s beloved system of social incentives is the first line of fire. In order to encourage smokers to stop smoking, the process needs to involve reactivating access to healthcare if smokers quit. But any cut-off point at which the right is re-activated will necessarily be arbitrary. Some studies have suggested that, for instance, teenagers do irreparable damage to their respiratory systems even if they stop smoking young. If all citizens make an informed decision to smoke, as the proposition argues, isn’t it the case that teenagers make an informed decision to do inordinate damage to their bodies? If it is, then why should there be an absolute cut-off point at which one reassumes healthcare rights? Should there be a relative scale? Wouldn’t this be impossible to construct on a scientific basis?\ Further on constructing fair systems scientifically, the major practical issue undermining this case is being sure the person is a smoker, especially if it is alleged that they were in the past rather than the present. Couldn't they have got their illness through, e.g. passive smoking or an industrial process?
The recent rise in popularity of right wing extremist parties across Europe - from Le Pen in France ...

The recent rise in popularity of right wing extremist parties across Europe - from Le Pen in France to Pim Fortuyn in Holland, not including the success of the BNP in Burnley council - shows the success that appealing to voters on extremist grounds can have. It is not good enough to say that there is no threat, or that parties are not successful. We have a duty to act against a threat to our society in the form of extremism.
The recent rise in popularity of right wing extremist parties across Europe - from Le Pen in France ...

There is no rise in extremism. The BNP threat was localised in the extreme and all candidates in the general election of 2002 lost their deposits. The success of Le Pen was ironically in moderating his extremist message, couple with the fracturing of the Left in French politics, and the Front Nationale didn’t win any French Assembly seats. Likewise, Pim Fortuyn’s party was socially liberal, having the same line on immigration as the Britain’s Labour Party! Such a draconian law as proposed would be a disproportionate response to a limited threat.
Merely by being allowed to advocate their views, extremist parties are given a veneer of respectabil...

No one is disputing the fact that extremist views are repellent. Yet they are often shallow and not logically thought out. Meeting their views and combating them in open and honest debate is the most effective way of highlighting the flaws in the ideology, rather than have them transmitted in a one-sided manner that gives no chance to counter. It gives the impression that there is some validity to the message.
Those that talk of parties going underground with such banning legislation are wrong. Their censors...

Such parties benefit from going underground. They can play themselves as martyrs and against the establishment, being denied their chance to have a say. Witness Nick Griffin (BNP leader) and his notorious 'gagged' campaign, and Le Pen’s similar ploys in France. Such anti-state rebellious sentiment will be very attractive to a cross section of the dispossessed and dispirited in society - what New Labour have identified as the 'angry young men' - who provide a fertile ground for votes and support.
We have the right to make a moral judgement on society and its actions. We can declare things abhor...

Moral judgements are fine but the very strength and weakness of a democracy is in allowing anyone to challenge it and mould it. If the system regulates itself by declaring who can challenge it then it is not pure and it is a betrayal of the very system. It is also highly subjective to categorise a party as 'extremist' or 'far-right'; there is a wide difference in policy between groups such the BNP and Front Nationale, and the List Pym Fortuyn. Alongside repellent views on race there may be policies on topics such as immigration, devolution and policing which challenge the status quo and are worthy of serious political debate.
The very principle of allowing a childless couple to have a baby is already in place in Britain. Thi...

The case for further adoption, to reconcile the moral dilemma of “extra embryos” is inherently flawed. This assumes a right to be a parent that arguably does not exist. Couples who cannot have children should adopt or foster children – again, setting a precedent for every couple to be able to have a baby of their own is dangerous, and also impractical and unfair when there are adequate arrangements available for adoption of orphaned children.
Using In Vitro fertilisation (IVF), an embryo can be made by the fertilisation of an egg with a sper...

Using In Vitro fertilisation (IVF), an embryo can be made by the fertilisation of an egg with a sperm outside of the female’s body. The resulting embryonic cells can be tested by removing one and screening the DNA complement to ascertain the presence of specific genes. This procedure is already being employed in labs. It can help to identify potentially debilitating illnesses or inherited disorders, and also for determining the sex of a baby to allow parents carrying a sex-linked disorder gene to procreate without passing on a genetic disorder to their children. It is eminently sensible to employ this technology to ensure that children are as healthy as possible.
We have a duty to a child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is avail...

We have a duty to a child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntingdon’s we should exercise that right. This is not a case of engineering a child, or altering a genome, but choosing which of several embryos will be implanted into the mothers womb. It is only practical to choose a child with the best chance of being healthy.
It is crucial to remember that IVF treatment is at present employed to aid the fertility treatment o...

It is crucial to remember that IVF treatment is at present employed to aid the fertility treatment of childless couples. Embyros are at present 'created' in vitro and implanted into the womb. Genetic screening would merely add a 'safety valve' to this process. In addition, laws on abortion throw issues of when an embryo is considered 'a life' into dispute, and these arguments can also be applied to the implanting or freezing of embryos.
The very principle of allowing a childless couple to have a baby is already in place in Britain. Thi...

The very principle of allowing a childless couple to have a baby is already in place in Britain. This would simply extend the case to allow parents who are entirely infertile to have a baby. If the right to parenthood, and the right to have a child are extended to IVF couples then it is contradictory to deny another couple the chance to have a baby. The opp argument 5 is an argument against IVF in general, and not adoption.
Using In Vitro fertilisation (IVF), an embryo can be made by the fertilisation of an egg with a sper...

It is right to accept that couples using IVF can ensure that of the embryos conceived a healthy one is implanted. However, this foretells a slippery slope for future exploitation of the process. If we set a precedent for screening and 'choosing' babies, this must not develop into the widespread abuse of screening to create 'designer babies' chosen for other aesthetic or desirable qualities. This is morally wrong.
We have a duty to a child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is avail...

It is abhorrent to presume that those born with physical or mental defects or genetic predispositions to congenital disorders do not enjoy quality of life as fruitful as those born without. This discounts the valuable contribution of any life to society, and also ignores the feelings and happiness of many individuals. Not only is it presumptuous but quite distasteful to suggest that they be bred out of society as “inferior” beings, and promotes discrimination. More to the point, many “defective” genes confer advantages of a different nature e.g. the sickle cell anaemia allele protects against malaria, and several neurological defects can result in extraordinary levels of intelligence.
Football is political and we love to analyse

The enjoyment of football is not just about the sport itself; we love the politics behind the scenes of football. In another sport, the transfers and team signings do not make big news. In football however, the transfer windows are big media hype. We want to know which club has got which players. We like to assess why managers would pick certain players over others. Most of all, we love to pass judgment on the referees decisions and his political motives behind them. Did he have an ulterior motive? Or should we complain that he is too far sighted to be a referee. Either way, we love delving into the politics. Politics isn’t perfect and neither is football. But if we marginalized the referees role, we would marginalize the political element in football, and this would make the game less analytical.
It would ruin football’s simplicity and non-exclusivity.

Why is it that has football been able to spread world wide? How come footballers can come from rich and/or poor countries? In fact, Brazil are so good at introducing new players to the field because children play on beaches! If we were to suddenly add goal line technology to the game, this would ruin the simplicity and availability of the game for many people. Rugby is seen as a middle class sport. Schools need to have money in order to be able to host tournaments for their pupils. With football this is not the case. All you need is a ball and an open space. Poorer countries would be marginalized from football if we started making it a sport based around technology.
England cannot complain now.

Another world cup sees England’s hopes dashed for a repeat of 1966. But was history altogether not repeated? In that 1966 game, it was against West Germany. The winning goal was allowed to stand even though there was confusion as to whether the ball crossed the line in that scenario or not. History has repeated itself avertedly; history has taken back that goal. England did not then complain and whine for video refereeing, so why should they now?
FIFA autocrats leave football in the dark ages

Goal line technology is expensive; when FIFA is cutting down on ball quality to budget adding more frivolous expenses is not an idea they could care less for, realistically speaking. This year's World Cup is a joke (bad balls, bad judgments, bad referees) and using high tech means to determine how funny it is will only further embarrass the organizing board, but it goes beyond that. The fact that referees are humans too and that they could make mistakes does not change the fact that they're the ones who are in charge of the game. If they made mistakes, then they should not make another. If people have poor quality refs, then there should be a better ref academy. The idea is not to add stuff, but to find out what's wrong with the current situation people are having. Besides, there still can be multiple interpretations on a video, especially if a decision has to be made in the middle of a game, which means there won't be enough time to analyze what happened. Who is going to see and make the call from seeing the video? The people watching or the ref? Of course we can't hand it to the people watching, there'd be endless debate over both sides of the teams competing. If eventually the ref will make the call anyway, then why blame the ref for the mistakes at the first place? Refs should be more professional, not given a reason to slack off and rely on cameras.
Only in Top Class football - make a monitor available to the match officials for replay of 'ball over the goal line' incidents only.

First of all the idea that it should be only for the replays of 'ball over the goal line' is strange--cameras don't discriminate, and if you've already set a camera on it it's bound to tape everything, so there really is no use of limiting it to certain incidents only. Second of all, this idea once again discriminates by only proposing the usage of the camera in top class football, aka very important matches. So what happens with the other matches? What's the criteria for a 'top class' match? To the people of Liverpool then all Liverpool matches are top matches, are they not? There really shouldn't be any differentiation between one match and another, because what we're arguing is the merits of a video replay for refs.
Football is political and we love to analyse

Putting in a football equivalent of a third umpire wouldn't hurt the entertainment value of the game; put enrich it further. Given the current whoopsie daisy world cup we are experiencing, we badly need a viable save. Something that would bring the beloved game back to her glory day gusto. All sports require credible judges for them to be taken seriously. Fairness is key. Football is not a soap opera and the ensuing movement towards it becoming that must be stopped in its tracks. We're tired of tabloids,scandal and glamor/glamour. We want to see some action; we love the game. Can we have our game back?
It would ruin football’s simplicity and non-exclusivity.

No one is suggesting that children playing on beaches and the streets start using goal line technology. There is a third umpire in cricket; that doesn't stop Pakistani boys everywhere from playing cricket on the road, in parks etc. They don't use super expensive safety equipment or uniforms either. The same is the case with rugby; high-school/college football isn't normally played using high fidelity technology but it is ubiquitous. There are human referees. Point is there is a huge amount of money thrown into the game and sentiments are at risk; the least consolation that world cup organizers can offer fans is the promise/guarantee of fairness. Where has anyone suggested that hi-tech video camera's be a legal must on a beach in Brazil or a field in Ghana. We are talking about high importance matches. The only downside I can see is that the game would stop every 2 minutes as players challenge decisions - but this could be got round as they do in tennis by limiting the number of challenges to say 3 or 4. Video technology is already used for rescinding yellow/red cards or banning players where fouls are considered dangerous, where the officials have not seen the incident. This is not available to teams in lower divisions, so there is already an injustice in the system.
England cannot complain now.

It is never too late to demand prime quality and real justice. This World cup is the worst world cup to date; what with the weird ball and statistics. Somebody got up and decided to absolutely desecrate the face of football and now we're all angry at the referee because he makes the final call and is not value neutral, being human and everything. If we had goal line technology our reaction would be less crazy and more rational. What absolute nonsense on the right. How could anyone complain about a technology that didn't even exist. The game has moved into a different dimension altogether in the past 40 years or so (how many players in what was then Div 1 came from abroad - very few - but that's a different debate!)
FIFA autocrats leave football in the dark ages

The world can only pray that after Sepp Blatter saw with his own eyes the fruits of his anachronistic efforts to isolate football from advancing technology that he may change his mind. England v Germany in the last 16 of the world cup, Frank Lampard scores from outside the box to level the game at 2-2, everyone but two Uruguayans saw the ball bounce a clear yard over the line and yet the goal did not stand, at a pivotal point in one of FIFA's show piece knock-out games. The decision to disallow the goal further solidifies the view of fans, players, managers and ex-professionals alike that goal line technology must be introduced immediately. Sadly this is not an isolated incident. Pedro Mendes obvious goal at Old Trafford which wasn't given is a prime example for the archives. In fact, video technology would have saved us all from Jose Mourinho's incessant whining over the 'ghost goal' at Anfield in the Champions League by Luis Garcia. Even this season, Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out. They lost two points because the man who mattered did not see the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this refereeing blunder could have relegated them, leading to the club almost certainly being liquidated. We know Mr. Blatter feels that all these goal line controversies are good for the game, as they arouse conversation and debate, but try telling that to a supporter of your local club who misses out on promotion, is relegated or fails to win a cup because we do not have the option to use video replays. However frustrating it is, referees are humans and they do make mistakes, that is why like other sports such as Cricket, Rugby, Aussie rules football and tennis, we should embrace video technology, at first just goal line technology which has been proven to be efficient and inexpensive to do. However, we may have to wait until Mr. Blatter's long anticipated retirement until we see any positive progress towards a more fair and modern way of refereeing.
Only in Top Class football - make a monitor available to the match officials for replay of 'ball over the goal line' incidents only.

Goals are the ultimate measure of success in Top Class football competitions. If it is a Top Class game then it will be covered by a TV/media production company. They can provide the robust technology as part of their contract with whichever football authority negotiated the match coverage. The production company can make a monitor available to the match officials for replay of 'ball over the goal line' incidents only. This solution will provide the Benefit at no/little extra cost to the football authority/club. If the game is not important enough to be of interest to the media then it is not a Top Class game by default and the match officials continue as before without the technology. Outside of Top Class football, debates about referees decisions are part of the unique culture of football for both players and supporters alike.
Video replays would take away from the entertainment

The reason why football is so popular is because it is entertaining. If we were to be honest, we love the rule that referee's decision is final. We love to hate the referee. We enjoy the feeling of luck when it goes our way, and we love to moan when it does not go our way. So, whether we win or lose the game, we are entertained. To put video replays in football would deny us of this pleasure, and it would be to the detriment of the entertainment value of watching football. We may not feel good about our loss but we are moved by it, thus entertained. And there is enjoyment in mourning and yelling over a united cause. It gives people a reason to get together,rant,drink and have a good time. Targeting the referee, doodling a funny mustache on his photographs; sticking his face on a punching bag ... that sort of thing, proves to be very (immature) enjoyable. Who do you cuss when goal line technology boots your team? All the anger over any such unchallengeable loss would be pent up without relief and may cause serious problems later.
Football is really about showmanship, not sport

Rugby uses video replays because it is a proper sport with defined rules and real team tactics. Football differs to this. It is no coincidence that most footballers are good looking. Football is much like a film. It is filled with drama and actors. From the diving players, to the aggressive players, to the heroic captain even to the manager on the side of the pitch overreacting to the smallest of knocks or opportunities; football is all about acting. The ref plays a part in this. To add video refereeing would take away this part and would make football an incomplete display of showmanship. Counterargument: We want them to look good not bad. And the point above is all about preserving the drama of the game rather than turning it into something calculated which it isn't relative to Rugby.
Driving behaviour has not changed since cameras were introduced

If cameras were really helping to slow drivers down then ask yourself why more and more speeding tickets have been issued each year? With 1.9 million tickets issued in 2007 compared to 700,000 in 1997, one could argue that cameras have increased the number of speeding incidents. If cameras did what the authorities claimed they would do then there should be less speeding tickets issued, not more. http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue