BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Safe seats will be reduced.

All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)
PR creates an unfair balance of power.

Coalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority).   Particularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them.
The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important.

Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88)
PR produces fairer results

As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.
PR increases political engagement which benefits society.

There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?
PR leads to weaker government.

A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued "They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle."(Today, 2011) The assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote.
PR decreases political engagement.

On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.   The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)
Extremist parties will rise under PR.

A democracy means that everybody’s view should be valued equally. However much some people might dislike one party, other people still have the right to vote for them. If extremist parties do gain seats, then it shows the government needs to do more to address concerns. Moreover there are plenty of ways to avoid this problem in a proportional system, for example the German model of setting a lower bar that needs to be crossed before a party can have any representation in parliament. This would show that it is a party that can attract sufficient support to be worthy of representing those views in parliament.
Governments have the obligation to protect citizens from harmful substances

Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause individuals to take actions they would have not done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts against themselves and others. Democracy is based on the principle that the majority of people are to elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time which they have to use, to get well equipped to make more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. One of the principles in society therefore is that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the government trusted the people; they would make responsible decisions regarding alcohol.  However, each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol related diseases or accidents.[1] Thus the citizens proved not to be responsible; even though they had information available they did not make the choice that would keep them alive. The government has a duty to protect those irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will not be able to contribute to society to the extent they could without alcohol. And because the government does not know who is the one that will make a stupid decision that will engender their lives in the long run, for the sake of few individuals’, alcohol has to be banned for all. Therefore, because the government has been trusted with the duty to make informed decisions instead of the individuals and to protect the individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol if they believe it is very harmful. [1] msnbc.com, Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year, published 06/25/2005,  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/, accessed 08/13/2011
Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.

Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of disputes and distress in society. It also contributes to the psychological problems of the alcohol consumer children. While the problem might not be connected to one individual in society, it is important that laws protect those, who might abuse their rights and with this hurt others. Currently in the US alone, there is an estimated 6.6 million children under 18, which live in households with at least one alcoholic parent.[1] It was never the fault of these children that others started to drink and harm them. According to psychological studies many of the children coming from alcohol abuse families have problems such as low self-esteem, loneliness, guilt, feelings of helplessness, fears of abandonment, and chronic depression. Children of alcoholics in some cases even feel responsible for the problems of the alcoholic and may think they created the problem.[2] Alcohol is also a great contributor not only to psychological, but also to physical damage. Many times, alcohol is an easy excuse for domestic abusers. The incidence of domestic abuse in households, where there is alcohol abuse is a lot higher and the abusers name the effects of alcohol as their main cause of violence.[3] With taking away alcohol we take away the fuel of many of the abusers, thus protecting third involved parties.     [1] Alcohol Information, Alcohol Statistics, http://www.alcohol-information.com/Alcohol_Statistics.html, accessed 08/14/2011 [2] Parsons T., Alcoholism and it’s effects on the Family, AllPsych Journal, published 12/14/2003, http://allpsych.com/journal/alcoholism.html, accessed 08/16/2011 [3] University of Minnesota, Alcohol and Domestic Violence, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/domestic/link/alcohol.htm, accessed 08/17/2011
Banning alcohol would lead to healthier individuals.

A ban of alcohol would have a great impact on the health of every individual. Alcohol and especially alcohol abuse are very common problems in today’s society. Long lasting abuse of substances leads to many chronic diseases such as liver cirrhosis (damage to liver cells); pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas); various cancers, including liver, mouth, throat, larynx (the voice box), and esophagus; high blood pressure; and psychological disorders.[1] With a ban of alcohol we would very much lower the rates of consumption, as already current drug laws show. Even though drugs have a similar effect as alcohol, because of the risk of consequences when using those substances. Therefore in general the number of alcohol addiction would sink and cause also less of a financial health burden. According to the US alone, the economic cost of alcohol abuse in 1998 was 184.6 billion dollars. [2] This is a burden which many state budgets have to bear. Therefore if this cost can be prevented, the lives of people improved (by not getting the chronic diseases) we should do so.      [1] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Alcohol and Public Health,  http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm#healthProb, accessed 08/17/2011 [2] Harwood, H.; The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992. Report prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, http://faceproject.org/topics/pdfs/Chap06C.pdf, accessed 08/17/2011
The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.

Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others. A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.   With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say.[1] So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo. [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478144/ns/today-today_health/t/wine-good-you/, accessed 08/14/2011
Prohibition would be impractical and serve only to create an enormous black market

In comparison to any other drug, alcohol is very easy to produce (hence the great amount of vineyards) and very much engraved in the culture of especially European countries.     Therefore a ban would be very ineffective, as the people would do it due to the ease of producing alcohol and the cultural acceptance. A ban would bring just more deregulation and loss of taxes through the black market. We might acknowledge that the legal implications will scare away some people from drinking alcohol, but the main part of population will want more. Because there is a strong inelastic demand and the illegal supply will flourish. This can be seen already with both and illegal drugs. It is also the lesson of Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s. Smuggled alcohol brought in from much cheaper continental countries will undercut both pubs and law-abiding retailers, and will circumvent the normal regulations which ensure consumer safety, such as proof-of-age or quality controls. In Saudi Arabia, a country with an alcohol ban, the Saudi police had seized over 100,000 bottles of eau-de-cologne with an expired expiration date. The methanol in cologne recently led to the deaths of over 20 people who drank it and many others were blinded. Earlier, over 130,000 bottles were confiscated.[1] Because people wanted alcohol so badly and could not get it. While in Europe there might not be much of poisoning going on, a great amount of alcohol because of the different wine regions. Only Spain has already 2.9 million acres of land devoted entirely to the planting of wine grapes. However, it is only number 3 when it comes to the amount of wine actually produced.[2] So in comparison to the Arabic countries, there is a lot of ground where easily to produce alcohol and therefore making it hard to control.    Worse, criminals will find a market for cheap, home-brewed alcohol, of the kind which kills or blinds hundreds of people a year in countries like Russia.[3] Overall criminality will flourish, with the gang violence associated with Prohibition or the drugs trade. An alcohol ban has worked mainly in countries where it is very tight tied to religion and to the religious practices. Especially in countries that are secular and more multicultural, the ban would be impossible to enforce. The harms associated with black market alcohol are too great for us to risk introducing this proposal. [1] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAbuse.html, accessed 08/18/2011 [2] A Beginners Guide to Spanish Wine, http://www.eventswholesale.com/article/spanish-wine.htm, accessed 08/18/2011 [3] Sodertorns Hogskola, The Alcohol Use in Russia and the Baltic Sea Region, published April 2000,   http://webappl.sh.se/C1256C930076231F/0/17B99CCA2C0854EAC1256D130035BA03/$file/12.pdf, accessed 08/18/2011
Banning alcohol is a quick fix to a wider societal problem.

By banning alcohol the government is searching for a quick way out of the problem of people excessively drinking, making bad decisions when under the influence of alcohol. Alcoholism and also drunk driving is a problem in many countries over the world. It has taken governments for over 30 years to decrease the number of drunk driver accidents, to decrease the number of drinkers in certain regions. This is a hard campaign battle, the government has to battle. According to a recent study, by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, campaigns contribute to approximately 13 % of decrease in drinking through time. This is a number with which many governments are not satisfied as they are pouring a lot of money in the campaigns.[1]  In Scotland alone, the annual expenditure for the “drink driving campaign was £141000.[2] Because of quite high expenditure on campaigns, countries may see a ban as an easy way out of these expenditures. Therefore for the government it seems maybe reasonable to prevent just all citizens from drinking. With this the government might be saying that the problem is fixed (because no one is allowed to drink alcohol anymore), but mainly it is just superficially solving it. As people’s mentality has not changed just through a law passing, they have created only more problematic users, they cannot target with campaigns and so do not impact the society. A quick public message that they fixed the superficial problem, while leaving citizens in their misery. [1] Elder R., Effectiveness of Mass Media Campaigns for Reducing Drinking and Driving and Alcohol-Involved Crashes, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published 2004,  http://meagherlab.tamu.edu/M-Meagher/%20Health%20Psyc%20630/Readings%20630/Healthcompro/mass%20media%20drink%2004.pdf, accessed 08/13/2011 [2]Institute of Alcoholic Studies, Economic cost and benefits,  http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/economic_costs_benefits.pdf, accessed 08/13/2011
Banning alcohol harms the economy.

Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry. In 2007, it was a $970 billion global market for alcoholic beverages, experiencing a period of unprecedented change. While about 60 percent of the market was still in the hands of small, local enterprises, truly global players are steadily emerging and creating an even greater market. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy.[1] A point further on is that currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale. [1] Jackson J., Spirited performance, published May 2007,  http://www.accenture.com/us-en/outlook/pages/outlook-journal-2007-alcoholic-beverages-industry-report.aspx, accessed 08/17/2011
Governments have the obligation to protect citizens from harmful substances

Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and no other individual. Since the pleasure gained from alcohol and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress alcohol use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of alcohol abuse.
Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.

Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface. A study conducted by the University of Osnabrück (Germany) explains that individuals who are the cause of domestic violence usually have very little or no capacity for empathy from the early stages of their development. It states, that the domestic violence is deeply rooted in their psychology. Thus, nothing to do with alcohol as the cause of third party harm.[1] Alcohol, at worst, may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social and abuse would happen anyway, even without alcohol.[2] Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either. [1] European Council of Europen - Human Rights, Explaining the inclination to use violence against women, October 1999, http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/66l-en_vio.htm, accessed 08/17/2011 [2] Hanson D., Drinking Alcohol and Domestic Abuse, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html, accessed 08/17/2011
Banning alcohol would lead to healthier individuals.

First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where prices of beer are very low in comparison to other beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a harmful way.[1] So why force people to give up something, just because a minority is not sure how to use it.    Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse, campaigns and information have very effectively reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8% among black men, 15.3% among white men, 47.9% among black women and  33.3% among white women[2] [1] Ryan R., The Highs and Lows of Germany's Drinking Culture, published 11/18/2006, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2226609,00.html, accessed 08/18/2011 [2] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAbuse.html, accessed 08/18/2011
The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.

The state is obligated, when the health of citizens is on the line, to pass laws and regulations that protect them. The precedent has already been established in most countries with most forms of drugs. Citizens’ rights in this case are not a right to have drugs, but a right to be protected from the harmful effects of the substances, not merely on their own bodies but society as a whole. Governments would be derelict in their duty if they did not act to remove such harmful substances from society.
Prohibition would be impractical and serve only to create an enormous black market

In any single law, that prohibits substances there is going to be the danger of a black market. In Canada, a black market for alcohol developed despite the legal status of alcohol (it was due to high taxation). The Association of Canadian Distillers actually estimated that 25 % of all spirits in Ontario are consumed illegally (without paying taxes).[1] The problem therefore is not going to lay in the ban itself, but in the enforcement of legislation and thorough control of the markets.   [1] Mackenzie Institute, Prohibition’s Hangover – Ontario’s Black Market and Alcohol,  http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1997/1997_10_Sex_Alcohol.html, accessed 08/17/2011