BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Many feminist campaigns, on issues such as positive discrimination in employment, actually damage th...

Campaigns on behalf of women in particular reflect the feminist contention that women have been unfairly discriminated against for years, and that this is likely to continue without positive action. There are various reasons why many more men than women choose certain professions, one of which is that male-dominated professions can be unpleasant ones for women to work in irrespective of their ability, a problem which is likely to be self-perpetuating without intervention. Men who resent losing out to women (given the way employment law works, they are likely to be equally well qualified rather than better-qualified women) should reflect on the fact that women have been losing out to men for years.
Men have big problems too. By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise tha...

There are two responses to this. First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, feminism possesses the resources to offer a distinctive and useful critique of the causes and consequences of sexual inequality, whether it is men or women who suffer as a result - men and women should be joining forces to offer feminist responses to discrimination, not blaming feminism where men suffer.
Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hat...

Opponents of the feminist movement have always sought to stereotype feminists in order to reduce their support. That this enterprise is often successful is not an argument against feminism; in any case, many of the women who dislike the label ‘feminist’ turn out to hold what would until recently have been seen as extreme feminist views, such as the belief that women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms. Feminists have always argued that women are just as capable of men; they have campaigned against legal, cultural and social barriers which have worked against women, preventing them from achieving equality.
Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abo...

Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most western countries, although of course it may still be useful in parts of the world where women still lack basic democratic and other rights.
Feminism promotes an unnatural equality between the sexes. There is nothing wrong with sex-role dif...

Feminism promotes an unnatural equality between the sexes. There is nothing wrong with sex-role differentiation. Men and women are biologically different, and these differences are what have led to women’s dominance of the private sphere, home life and childrearing, and men’s dominance of public life, the workplace and political authority. All of these are essential to a functional society, and the division of labour on the basis of sex is an entirely sensible principle of social order. There is a distinction between enshrining equality of pay, democratic representation and opportunity in law, and actively encouraging women to reject their traditional, and in many cases preferred, gender roles. Women are, in general, more fulfilled by motherhood than by career success.
Many feminist campaigns, on issues such as positive discrimination in employment, actually damage th...

Many feminist campaigns, on issues such as positive discrimination in employment, actually damage the women they claim to help. Feminists should recognise that in many professions the unequal representation of women reflects the fact that relatively few women want to work there in the first place, rather than the fact that women are discriminated against by employers. If employers feel pressured to accept women over better-qualified men this can cause resentment both among male competitors and among women who do not want to feel they have an unfair advantage. Campaigning for women in particular undermines the principle that women can compete on equal terms with men.
Men have big problems too. By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise tha...

Men have big problems too. By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise that there are inequality issues in which men are the victims. For example: boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement; far less money is spent on combating ‘male’ than ‘female’ diseases (the difference between the amount of research into breast cancer and prostate cancer is a striking example); single fathers are discriminated against over child custody and child support; fear of being accused of sexism is so widespread that it often leads to unfair discrimination against men. These can only be tackled by recognising that feminism has gone too far.
Acting as an example and ensuring Justice

Firstly we want to be clear about the psychological therapy. As both teams accepted terrorist committed a mistake, something that’s wrong for the society. The psychological therapy is not restricted to lunatic people, in other spaces helps people to have conscience about their mistakes, correct and overcome them. This philosophy can be applied to terrorist and it will help to achieve social rehabilitation. About the argument presented we must said that we will not have justice, we will have revenge and hate. We think that terrorist acts must be punished and it’s important to get justice. But the justice is based in the respect of the rights of the criminal. If we only want to calm our “desire of blood” we are sending a bad message to our society and to the terrorist organizations. Our society will have a message of not respect of human life, rights and the possibility of rehabilitation. We are assuming the same ways of fight, and cultivating the hate in our society. The terrorist organization will increase his hate and the person death will be viewed as a hero: On the other hand, the opposite house is justifying death penalty of terrorist with death penalty of regular murderers, a theme that is not in the layout of this debate. Even if it was, this house, for the same reasons we already exposed, don’t support that kind of penalty. In that kind of reasoning, the other house is trying to trivialize the subject, comparing a decision of a teacher with the judge decision. If we can have a more efficient solution that removes this problem, the point of the opposite house becomes unnecessary.
Acting as an example and ensuring Justice

Death penalites are the highest that you can give to any person for any crime. Naturally, that is what is given to murderers and therefore we see no reason for this not be given to terrorists. If we let them off with something less serious, we are showing that we are not going to be hard line when dealing with these people. If a death sentence is effectively given to people who do cause death, we are effectively setting an example for anyone who would want to commit such a crime in the future. In fact, if they are merely imprisoned and given mental treatment, as Team Columbia suggest, we are leaving a scope open for terrorists to openly commit these crimes. Because terrorists are people who are hell bent on fulfilling their agendas and when they see that despite killing, they are being let off rather easily, they will be encouraged to keep the trend alive. Whereas, through a death sentence, you are proving that the state will be harsh when dealing with these people. As such, you are setting a strong example to terrorists that shows what will be the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, justice becomes a key issue here. Let us talk of the families of the 9/11 victims. When they hear that the people responsible for the deaths of their family members have been caught, they will naturally demand justice. And it is one of the prime duties of the state to ensure that justice, honourable speaker. If Team Columbia cite humanitarian reasons for offering mental treatment and just imprisonment to the terrorists who cause death, i will ask them to show where humanity was during the 9/11 attacks, where humanity was during the Spanish SubWay bombings, where humanity was when the Taj Hotel in India was exploding with flames. You can't expect these terrorists to go to prison, get treatment then come out and live happy as if nothing ever happened. Finally, if that is the state they want, then that is a sad excuse of a state. These people deserve death penalties.
There are more efficient policies than death penalty

Team Columbia firstly said the criminal in question should be given psychological treatment while he is kept imprisoned. What they fail the understand is that psychological treatment is only given to somebody who is clinically proven to be a lunatic. However, there is no guarantee that all terrorists can be successfully proven to be lunatics. If they are lunatics, then they are not liable to general laws and will dealt with just like any lunatic is dealt with. However, we again repeat that not all terrorists are lunatics. If we take a close look at the infrastructure and systems that most terrorists organizations have set-up, we can easily see that something so intricate and well organized can’t possibly have been set-up by lunatics. While this does not mean that none of the terrorists are lunatics, it also means that most terrorists are not lunatics and are rather people with perfectly fine and in cases, better than average intelligence levels. Therefore, as the standard convention stands in the current status quo, we can’t say that it will be right to apply psychological treatment on these people as many of them are perfectly sane and it is not a question as to whether or not they need this treatmeant. Moreover, as lunatics , people who are to receive psychological treatment are prone to do things because of anatomical or hormonal problems. But, most terrorists are not the case. They are people with perfectly fine bodies and hormones but just that they have misunderstood somethings or have distorted views on certain issues. Something that does not separate them from the average murderer. Henceforth, as we are putting normal murderers to death it is a perfectly natural decision that we put the terrorist who has committed murder, to death. Again, they speak of mistakes that may or not may not arise in the the judge’s decision making. This is a very argument because if we are to consider the possibility of a judge making a blunder and stopping court sentences b
There are more efficient policies than death penalty

The opposition house believes that death penalty is an inefficient measure to avoid the effects of terrorist acts that cause death. Instead of, this house proposes other kind of measures as imprisonment with psychological treatment. This will ensure the social rehabilitation of the charged of terrorist acts and the possibility that has every human being, to defend him and be able to recognize his mistakes. In that case, the person will be able to attempt in front of the judicial authorities his freedom, and return to the society. This is also adequate because judicial authorities can be wrong at the moment they condemn the person who is charged to commit terrorist acts. Anyway, even the judge is human, and he can be wrong at the moment he appreciates the facts that are not favorable to the suspect. His lawyer, maybe, is not enough prepared to make the defense (fact than can be checked in almost all the undeveloped countries) and this can lead to an adverse decision. If the suspect is condemned and the death penalty is executed, there won’t be any possible remedy to this flaw, and that means that an irreversible measure should always be a completely correct decision. A human decision, like the judge’s, that ever can be reviewed, will never be completely sure. On the other hand, imprisonment will always be a reversible measure and, as this house already stated, it can be effective to penalize a person who actually committed terrorist acts that cause death. This is wider fair, because we literally don’t sacrifice any innocent people’s right. Finally, this house strongly believes that imprisonment in opposition of the death penalty is efficient to accomplish not only the punishment but also the social rehabilitation. In that order, we erase the fault and not the person.
we are increasing the hate inside terrorist organizations and the dead person will be seen as a hero that animates their fight.

Our argument is based in the mind of a terrorist: He doesn’t matter to give their life for the idea that they are defending. An example is Al qaeda in the 9-11 attacks. First the terrorist kidnapped the airplanes and then they obligated pilots to crash the planes to the towers: Their life was less important than his mission. After these events the terrorist was called heroes and his action make proud and animate the members of the organization to continue with their actions. When we finish with the terrorist’s life he will be seen like a hero inside this group. And his death will animate the desire of revenge and fight of their members. So we are not preventing these people to commit terrorist acts: We are promoting them. Furthermore, we are not removing something important the terrorist. It is more convenient to explore other ways of punishment. For example, a long jail period or the imprisonment. They will be more inflictive to the person and we will have justice and not collateral effects. Additionally, we will be respecting the rights of criminals and we will have more possibilities of social rehabilitation instead of killing them, based on the application of the measure that the proposition defends.
Summary

The arguments that we support are the effectiveness of the measure of the life imprisonment, a judicial review of the decision and the respect of the human rights, presented and defended in this debate as we summarize below: When this house tried to make a debate based on the normal and average meaning of the words of the motion, the opposite house inserted a concept absent in the layout of this debate. Actually we mentioned opportunely that regular murderer is not a subject debated and the fact that is sometimes penalized with death penalty can’t be a reason to justify death penalty herself. Death penalty is not justified for the terrorist acts, but even if it was accurate to present the regular murder point as an argument, the same reasons we have to reject the death penalty lead us to reject this penalty too. The first clash point was the death penalty as perfect way of justice and to demonstrate the people and the other terrorists that the State applies hardly and strictly the Law. Nevertheless, our house strongly believes that this effect is not reached in the reality, because the death itself is not a fear for most of people who commit terrorists acts that cause death (9/11 or Madrid’s Subway). In most of cases, the terrorist will die and become a hero this way. Long imprisonment and psychological treatment still a more efficient and better option. The second clash point is the psychological treatment. The proposition house differs in this argument, but as the opposition house recognize terrorists acts as a mistake, a fact that makes possible social rehabilitation. Nevertheless, they focus the refutation on the false supposition that a psychological treatment I s reserved for lunatics, and the terrorists aren’t so. As we already said, lunatic people may be treated, but that’s not a reason to exclude those kinds of treatments for people who are not qualified as lunatic. Our last argument to present in this summary was slightly refuted in this debate: the point about the judicial fault is tried to be trivialized comparing it with a professor’s decision. This house made an effort to be enough clear and short when we said that those are two kinds of decisions very different an incomparable due to the difference between the effects each one produces. For these reasons, the death penalty should not be imposed for terrorist acts that cause death.
'General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'

By the late-1980s Eastern Europe was in a mess, months of refugee crises had led Moscow to give Hungary permission to open its border with Austria, with Czechoslovakia later following suit. According to Svetlana Savranskaya the fall of the Berlin wall was a relief. While this could indicate that Gorbachev was not involved in the fall, without his reforms in the Soviet Union the iron grip on the eastern bloc would have held strong. When Ronald Reagan addressed Mikhail Gorbachev at the Brandenburg Gate he said: 'We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' By this time, June 1987, Gorbachev had already implemented the policy of openness, Glasnost, and had set the Soviet Union on the path to it's demise. The opening up of borders had a knock on effect in Eastern Europe, and when the Wall fell Gorbachev was not even awoken by his advisors[[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120188545]], reflecting the relaxation in policy. The measurement of his importance, to consider him as a key player, is the fact that without Gorbachev releasing the Soviet grip, the wall would not have been allowed to fall. If the wall came down because of the end of soviet-type communism, then Mr Gorbachev certainly ended it.
He did not stand by the sidelines, he 'trusted his eyes'.

Gorbachev's lack of direct action was not due to cowardice or a feeling of powerlessness by late 1989, as early as 1985 he had told the soviet satellites that he would not interfere in their affairs[[http://www.economist.com/node/14793729]]. He was a man who had faith in socialism, that in the changing world the Soviet state needed to change to survive alongside democracy, rejecting the isolationism of the past but still a man of the system. He was not a violent man, had no 'siege mentality' and this is why he took no direct action, but was a key player in why the world changed in 1989.
Gorbachev did not tear down the wall.

None of the political 'key players' could control the speed of events in the Eastern Bloc and Soviet Russia in the late 1980s. The inevitable decline of soviet communism, the refugee situation and the economic stagnation in the eastern bloc all served to move forward events at an alarming pace. It was not Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev or Erich Honecker who tore down the wall, it was the people. While the western world wondered if Gorbachev's political reforms were genuine, reformers in the eastern bloc were emboldened by the opening up of borders. It was positive action by the people, not the leadership that brought down the wall, as Gorbachev, according to Andrew Bast, 'largely watched events unfold while sitting on its hands'[[http://www.newsweek.com/id/221194/page/2]].
Evasion should not be decisive in determining whether a tax is warranted. Every tax system is subje...

Evasion should not be decisive in determining whether a tax is warranted. Every tax system is subject to some evasion and avoidance, and the extent of such behaviours is an appropriate concern. In any case, the very low level at which individual transactions would be taxed would be lower than the cost (or risk) of using other instruments instead. The argument that offshore financial centres are autonomous states and thus cannot be forced to cooperate is nonsense – their very existence depends on the protection of a G7 member.
A Tobin tax would reduce speculative trading and facilitate real trade and investment. More than 1.8...

There is little evidence that such taxes reduce market instability and they will certainly not stop speculative attacks. However, even a small tax on each transaction could be sufficient to reduce liquidity in financial markets and do exactly the opposite - lead to an increase in instability. Because the tax can’t distinguish between speculative activities and dealings to finance trade, all market participants would be subject to the tax and as trade is welfare enhancing, public welfare is reduced to the extent that trade is reduced. The motivations of different traders in financial markets are not well understood, and there is no way to target only destabilising traders.
A Tobin tax protects the most vulnerable economies. Recent crises have unevenly hit the poor, mostly...

A Tobin tax is of little use in the worst cases of speculations that usually hit the poorest economies. In the emerging market world of extremely high currency risks, investors who expect a short-term devaluation of as little as 3% or 4% would not be deterred by a low Tobin tax. Indeed, given the scale of recent emerging market devaluations (50% in Thailand and Indonesia, 40% in Brazil), the tax would be totally irrelevant.
The revenue generating potential of a tax is tremendous. It has been estimated that a tax of 0.1% co...

All these sums of money do seem a tempting solution but what they actually cause is an effect of “moral hazard”. Countries that would receive huge amounts of financial aid would get used to international institutions solving their problems and would not learn to build efficient economies. That is of course if we presume that rich countries (they would collect most of the tax) would be willing to allocate all this money to international institutions. Industrialised countries may want to keep it for themselves.
If international development organisations had their own source of money, they would be less depende...

The reality is that countries don’t want more independent international organisations. A huge challenge would be to persuade the rich to accept the loss of influence that would occur once these organisations gained a more independent income. The idea that revenues could fund the United Nations, for instance, has received an icy reception from the US. Sheer self-interest apart, there is an issue of democratic accountability at stake here, as independent international organisations are not subject to the same democratic control and scrutiny as most of the governments which would lose influence as a result of this proposal.
A Tobin tax would reduce speculative trading and facilitate real trade and investment. More than 1.8...

A Tobin tax would reduce speculative trading and facilitate real trade and investment. More than 1.8 trillion dollars changes hands every day on global foreign exchange markets. More than 80% of this trading is buying and selling money for profit’s sake. This speculation has played a crucial role in 1990s financial crises. In a crisis situation, currency trade swiftly increases and dealers often act as a “herd” and cause a rapid economic breakdown. A minimal tax would not hold back productive business transactions for trade and investment, but speculative transactions would be hit harder because the greater the frequency of transactions, the higher the tax charge.