BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developed economies can handle perpetual debt.

Developed nations have higher revenue-to-GDP ratios,[1] meaning that they can borrow a high portion of their GDP without a problem. Research conducted by the IMF found that industrial countries had aggregate public debt levels over 70% of GDP in the 1990s, but none had defaulted since WWII.[2] This is because government is always able to raise more taxes or if absolutely necessary print money. Governments should not needlessly cut back spending on programs that benefit society, and the evidence shows that industrial economies have no need to eliminate debt. [1] Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. “National Debt for Beginners.” NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343 [2] Ibid.
Increased government spending can be beneficial in a recession.

It is generally accepted that under Keynesian economics governments will seek to be counter-cyclical in their spending. This means government should spend more when the economy is not doing well and save during good years. This is simply to compensate for the lack of private demand.[1] Recently, economists have reached a greater consensus on the benefits of increased government spending during a recession as a form of fiscal stimulus.[2] Given the structure of welfare systems governments are bound to have deficits when the economy gets in to difficulties. When the private sector crashes and makes people unemployed government spending on unemployment benefits and housing are bound to increase. The government will therefore be spending more even without any new policies. As a result austerity often means cutting these benefits that the unemployed have been promised they would get by paying into the system. By attempting to impose austerity during a period of recessions and poor economic growth the government is doing precisely the opposite of what it should be doing. [1] The Economist, ‘Massively pro-cyclical economic policy’, 4 March 2010, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/deficit_spending [2] Ichitelle, Louis, ‘Economists Warm to Government Spending but Debate Its Form’, The New York Times, 6 January 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/business/economy/07spend.html
Governments can always raise more money.

Governments should not be worried about deficits or the debts they cause because they will always be able to pay them back. Government if necessary can always raise more taxes to pay off their debts, this means except for the political consequences of constantly raising taxes governments will not go bust until their people no longer have any more wealth to tax. There are also other options; many countries have in the past inflated their way out of debt. Both France and the United Kingdom after World War II had debts over 200% of GDP,[1] much higher than any European country today however both allowed inflation to erode this debt by having inflation higher than interest rates meaning the real value of the debt, and so what the government has to pay back declines. Finally in the worst case scenario there is always something to sell. Most states have huge numbers of assets; they control the provision of services like railway companies or post offices which can be sold off. They also own huge amounts of real estate and large amounts of land. The Greeks reacted badly to being told to sell off islands but in practice this would not mean these islands would not be Greek[2] although as a last resort sovereignty over an area could be transferred as occurred when the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. [1] Taylor, Brian, ‘Paying off Government Debt’, Global Financial Data, http://www.globalfinancialdata.com/news/articles/government_debt.pdf [2] Finch, Julia, ‘Greece told to sell off islands and artworks’, guardian.co.uk, 4 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/greece-greek-islands-auction
Excess government borrowing crowds out private investment.

Government bonds are unlikely to crowd out private investment because they have lower return rates.[1] Individuals and companies that are willing to risk losses for greater potential gains will still prefer to invest in private companies because government bonds will never yield high returns. The pro notes that individuals invest in government bonds have lower interest rates precisely because they are safe as they have the backing of the government and the central bank; this is a good thing. Most individuals cannot afford to take great risks for a big payoff; government bonds provide a way for individuals to be involved in investment[2] without risking their life savings. [1] “Corporate Bonds versus Treasury Bonds,” Lauterbach Financial Advisors, LLC., 2011. http://www.lfa-ia.com/resources/blog/162-educated-investor/1356-corporate-bonds-vs-treasury-bonds [2] Kimberly Amadeo, “What Type of Bonds are There?,” US Economy. http://useconomy.about.com/od/bondsfaq/f/Bond_Types.htm
Over time, budget deficits lead to large public debts, impacting a country’s credit in the international market.

The problems with accumulating debt cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Virtually all economists support the argument that in certain circumstances, a deficit is beneficial.[1] During recessions, the government needs more money for entitlement programs such as unemployment and health insurance,[2] but should not raise taxes excessively, as higher taxes stifle private investment. Italy’s problem has come because it has had low growth and has not reduced its debt when the economy is growing. This lesson therefore cannot be applied generally to austerity during a period of poor economic growth. [1] Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. “National Debt for Beginners.” NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343 [2] Ibid.
Once a country starts to get far into debt, getting out becomes more and more infeasible.

The opposition does not promote extravagant and reckless government spending; there is such thing as a responsible deficit. Yes Europe has a long term problem with an aging population but this should be distinguished from the short term problem of restarting economic growth. A short term deficit can allow the government to temporarily invest in better infrastructure and social services which make society better off, thereby increasing the tax base in the long run. If the tax take increases the debt can be paid down faster later. A government can therefore use a deficit to stimulate the economy in a recession while at the same time preparing the economy for this longer term problem with an aging population.
The government has a duty to its people and often oversteps its boundaries by incurring debt.

A government should act with the intent to benefit its people, and an imbalanced budget can be beneficial. If the government never did anything that could possibly have negative repercussions for the public, the government would never be able to do anything. A defensive war might turn out to be a mistake; should nations never protect themselves? Some argue welfare has created a cycle of poverty; should governments never implement social services? Governments are representatives of the people, and like individuals, sometimes make mistakes. There are some circumstances where excess debt has had negative consequences. However, the pro’s logic, which concludes that no government should ever be in debt, would render government completely immobile.
Domestic spending to prevent recessions is a form of investment.

Much of domestic spending goes to welfare programs, which have little investment value. 57% of the United States’ federal budget goes to welfare, pensions, and healthcare.[1] These entitlement programs do not carry the same promise of economic growth that investment does,[2] and thus we cannot conclude that a temporary budget deficit will be resolved by greater GDP growth. [1] Christopher Chantrill, “US Federal Budget Analyst,” US Government Spending, September 4, 2011. [2] Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. “National Debt for Beginners.” NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343
Developed economies can handle perpetual debt.

Countries may avoid defaulting on their loans, but that does not mean there are no repercussions to excessive debt. Nations with better credit ratings can receive loans at lower rates because they are considered a safe investment. Higher interest rates dig a government deeper into its hole, as it must now find a way to pay back even more money. In the interest of preserving low interest rates, thereby allowing tax dollars to be more efficiently directed towards services, governments should keep their budgets balanced for a good credit rating.
Increased government spending can be beneficial in a recession.

The opposition is advocating a very new resurgence of Keynesian economics that has not proven correct in recent recessions. Keynes’ argument that governments should spend more in recessions, even if it incurs a deficit, was largely dismissed by the 1970s because it did not work out in reality.[1]In the 1970’s having followed Keynesianism since the 1930’s several countries ran into ‘stagflation’, a combination of high unemployment and high inflation, increased spending to reduce unemployment would simply stoke inflation.  Instead what was necessary was tight monetary policy (reducing the money supply through high interest rates) to reduce inflation and supply side policies to increase employment through reducing the barriers to production so encouraging hiring. Until there is more evidence to demonstrate that Keynes may have been right, governments should stick with a balanced budget. [1] Ichitelle, Louis, ‘Economists Warm to Government Spending but Debate Its Form’, The New York Times, 6 January 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/business/economy/07spend.html
Improving the quality of state managed education

Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.
Increasing parents' freedom of choice

Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards. Thus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.
Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice

Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.
Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children

State education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.
Increasing parents' freedom of choice

Different parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived. Further, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.
The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme

Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area. Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.
Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice

Under the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue. There will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.
The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory

The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy. When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.
The act of killing can wreak immense psychological damage upon rational individuals

All the same harms apply if the moral agent lets the five die.  They still must cope with the knowledge that their decision resulted in deaths, in fact, more deaths.  Indeed, PTSD is brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death[1]. [1] Martynowicz, Daniel, ‘Afghanistan PTSD Worse Than Vietnam’, News By The Second, 1 July 2010, http://newsbythesecond.com/afghanistan-ptsd-worse-than-vietnam/2857/
The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible

We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones.  Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live.  That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death.  This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life.  However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated.  Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups.  In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized.  One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five.
Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many

While Rawls did oppose utilitarianism, he generated a hypothetical scenario that is useful, even to the utilitarian, for evaluating moral theories.  Imagine that all human beings were placed in a scenario where they knew nothing about their station in the world, and know only the basic laws of reasoning and human nature.  They do not know what their level of intelligence, personality traits, gender, socioeconomic status, race or religion will be, nor even when or where they will be born; they are “behind the veil of ignorance.”  Every single person who will ever exist is placed in this situation at the beginning of the universe.  Next, these human beings are told they will decide which rules will govern human conduct when they come to inhabit the world.  In such a situation, all rational human beings would ensure that they are treated fairly no matter who they are; they will have perfect sympathy for every human being ever, because they could end up being that person.  Whatever rules they come up with in this situation are the rules that are ethically correct, because these rules will never treat anyone unfairly (as that would be an irrational move).[1]  So how would people in this hypothetical treat the decision whether to kill one to save five?  Rational actors would agree on the rule to kill the one and save the five.  After all, any given person is five times as likely to end up as a member of the five rather than as the one.  Thus, behind the veil of ignorance, the rational human being would proudly prescribe “Save the five and kill the one.” [1] Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University press, 1971, p.136
It is worse to actively participate in a death then to simply allow an individual to die

While people die all the time, it is exceptionally rare for one human being to intentionally cause the death of another, even for a perceived “greater good.”  The difference is that when one actively kills, one causes the killing.  They bring about something that would not otherwise have happened, and they set it in motion.  What is key is the moral actor’s role in the very inception of the threat to the life of another person.  Their responsibility for the resulting death is far greater than had they committed the same non-action as every other person who wasn’t present to make the decision at all.
Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong

While simply consulting our moral intuitions case-by-case is not always reliable (indeed many people have contradictory moral intuitions), certain moral intuitions are needed in order to morally theorize.  If a moral theory was impeccably well thought out, but prescribed actions completely at odds with our moral intuitions (such as advocating indiscriminate assault and robbery), then we would rightly dismiss it out of hand.  When it comes to killing, our intuition prohibiting it is foundational and widely held.
The act of killing can wreak immense psychological damage upon rational individuals

To know that one has actually killed another human being will haunt the moral agent forever.  Instances of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for soldiers returning for warzones are increasingly reported, suggesting that a situation of killing very often warps the killer’s life[1]. This holds true even for people not directly and viscerally involved in killings, such as the incredible guilt felt by the team of the Manhattan project.[2] [1] ScienceBlog, ‘1 in 5 Iraq, Afghanistan Vets has PTSD’, 17 April 2008, http://scienceblog.com/15954/1-in-5-iraq-afghanistan-vets-has-ptsd-major-depression-rand/ [2] Long, Tony, ‘Aug. 6, 1945: ‘I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds’, Wired, 6 August 2007,  http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/dayintech_0806
A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible.

To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers.  This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons”[1]. We are all different people, and we do not all share in the alleged benefits to maximizing total utility.  For this reason, our moral intuitions reject out-of-hand many variants on “killing one to save five”; for instance, we would think it abhorrent to abduct a random person and harvest their organs in order to save five dying people, even in the absence of side effects like people now being afraid of having their organs taken.  Also, see “different lives weigh differently” argument below. [1] Richardson, Henry S., ‘John Rawls (1921-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 November 2005, http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/
We cannot make value judgments as to who should and should not be marked for death or for salvation

That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.”  However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they will be saved.  The only time this would not be true is if the average person had a net negative effect on the world, but if this were the case it would commit us to the implausible position that we ought to act in a manner so that the fewest people survive, which is absurd.
We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence

The moral agent’s decision will not necessarily have such wide-ranging consequences.  In many cases, the matter will remain fairly quiet (even if it is reported to the police).  Furthermore, this is only dubiously a “killing” if one does not adopt a deontological take on the action; it’s simply a weighing of the benefits of who can be saved.  In another sense, branding it as making “killing” acceptable is misleading, because this is not a moral license to commit wanton murders, but instead a sacrifice in a situation with no bloodless answer.  Moreover, even if the decision becomes public knowledge, and is defined as killing, people will recognize that the circumstances of having to make this decision were truly exceptional.
Utilitarianism is morally demanding

Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes.  However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity.  In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five.  This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.