BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Excluded Groups

Firstly, prisoners are excluded from the vote. This means that the VOTER is considered less equal, not the vote itself. Secondly, prisoners are excluded because they have broken the law. Similarly, children are excluded because they are too join. The proposition accepts that there are certain reasons to reasonably exclude someone from the voting process - breaking laws is arguably one of these reasons. Thirdly, whether it is practised or not does not make it the correct action. Torture is practiced in many countries, but is still considered to be immoral.
Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating

Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.
It would be our rational choice

It could be said that if we were to think rationally, every human really wants to eat healthily but other factors influence their choice. Things such as supermarket advertising, and brand promotion. These forms of advertising have the human will so bound up we are almost hypnotized into eating unhealthily, we only do it because we are told to. By making healthy eating mandatory all the Government would be doing is giving effect to our own true, rational, free will.
Parents currently cannot control what their child eats when not in their care

Working parents who leave their children with child minders and nurseries cannot control what their children eat. If Dr Emmett’s survey is correct (see footnote above), then what a child eats before the age of 3 is of utmost importance to later life education. Given these facts, we should legislate to make healthy eating mandatory so that parents know that their child is eating healthily when out of their care.
The government should not impact on our private lives

Central government would be acting outside its powers if it were to make such a large intrusion on our private lives. We already cannot smoke in public, this is to avoid harming other people, but if the government were to come along and tell us that we were not allowed to smoke in our own homes, everyone would agree that the government would be going too far. Now think of an official in our kitchen, watching our every move; giving us stern looks and getting the cuffs out of his pocket every time we reached out for the biscuit tin. Such an intrusion is so offensive that it seems ridiculous.
Too hard to enforce

How would Government be able to enforce this piece of legislation if it was eventually drafted. Would we have weekly blood tests? Or would we have a camera placed in our mouths surgically so that everything we ate was documented? The cost of either of these methods would outweigh the costs that unhealthy diets have on society in the first place! And what would the punishment be? Could people actually go to jail for eating unhealthily? If that be the case, what are the standards of prison food? He standards of that food will have to be increased if people were being put in there for not eating healthily. The whole enforcement of such a legislation would cost so much in comparison to a more engaging advertising campaign.
Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating

The problem here is that the NHS does not have enough money, the Government are failing to be cost effective and they are failing to budget. There should not have to be a choice between different drugs on the basis of costs. If the Government sorted the NHS out, all people, healthy- and not healthy- eaters could receive treatment. If the Government brought in a scheme of mandatory healthy eating and legislated on it, their motive would be to save money not lives. The fact of the matter is though, there is no research to suggest that the time and effort put into drafting mandatory healthy eating standards and the subsequent enforcement of it would cost less than treating those people who do suffer due to their poor eating habits.
People are too lazy to do it of their own accord

People should not be forced into healthy eating, it should be a choice. The Government should release more information so that people’s choices cohere with healthy options rather than imposing healthy eating on the nation. The current “Change for Life” campaign is based around children. The colour scheme is appealing to children as are the images. But let us not forget that it is the parents who make the eating decisions, they cook, they shop. So perhaps the Government should make more advertising based around adults, produce a campaign which is more appealing to that demographic. Doing this is a much better balance between healthy eating and freedom of choice, than making healthy eating mandatory.
It would be our rational choice

The simple solution to this then is not to impose a mandatory healthy eating bill but to impose restrictions on supermarkets and their advertising. According to this argument, if people were to choose freely, then they would chose the healthy options. Therefore, stop shops putting special offers on unhealthy foods. This is a much lighter restriction which will require less drafting and will impose less on individuals’ freedom. Who dictates what is a rational choice? If it really was what humans want to do, why don't they do it already? Advertising isn't hypnotism, its just someone persuading you to do something - you can resist it. People choose to eat unhealthily for just as rational reasons - for instance, they prefer food that is cheap, or tastes nice.
It will result in a more meritocratic Britain

Dr. Emmett has released the results of his 17 year survey on 9,000 children and their eating habits[[Dr Emmett, University of Bristol, January 2009]]. She discovered that children who ate healthy from an early age were more likely to achieve highly in education than those who had an unhealthy diet at a young age. This shows that children are not reaching their full potential because of the choices that their parents make regarding their food intake. To make Britain meritocratic, and give every child equal opportunities, a level eating playing field needs to be created, and the only way to ensure this is to legislate against unhealthy eating.
The government should not impact on our private lives

It was this very argument that people used to justify domestic violence not being policed. The belief that Government should keep out of our private lives leave the public in grave danger. Think back to the Baby P case. Should the parents have been prosecuted? They did their acts in the privacy of their own home; so by this privacy argument they should not have been prosecuted. Whilst less extreme, parents are harming their child by feeding them the wrong sorts of food, and we need to protect these children in any way we can; privacy be damned.
Too hard to legislate on.

There is a question of degree when you talk about healthy eating. One biscuit will not give you a heart attack. Eating unhealthy foods for one day will not give you a heart attack. So where would the legislators draw the line when drafting the legislation? How much unhealthy food would we be allowed to consume? Or would an entire ban on all healthy foods be put in place? What if someone treats themselves to an unhealthy meal every day, but they exercise to make up for it? Will they be classified as healthy or unhealthy? Does healthy eating mean that anorexics and bulimics will be punished? There are so many variables that it would be impossible for any draftsmen to create this legislative instrument.
There is no one healthy diet

There are many diets available for people to try/enjoy, but no one diet is superior in health to another. You may argue against the healthiness of red meat but Stearic acid is good for you. You may argue for eating fish, but then there is mercury poisoning (a trace element in fish) resulting from eating too much fish in one go. Greeks do not have longer healthier lives than anyone else[[http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html]]. There was a study by BBC a few years ago on regions where a lot of people live for over a hundred years and the results revealed that the cause was varying diets and/or forms of exercise/physical exertion. The main similarity between people who live very long was/is that they were/are all involved in 'some' kind of physical activity, faith and that they ate/eat until they were/are 'half'-full.-[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7250675.stm]] but there WAS nothing/squat/zero/zilch on a wonder diet that they ALL ate, as noted earlier: all these 'old people' had/have very different diets.
As politics gets more and more complicated, especially in the international arena, intellectuals are...

Heinz Eulau, in an article examining the role that public intellectuals have played in the past twenty years, argues that much of what these intellectuals have to say is based on opinion as opposed to actual ‘knowledge’. It is thus only as valuable as the opinion of each and every one of us. Fascination with public attention and recognition and the need to be recognized and treated as superior, as well as the tendency to take opposing positions simply to prove that they are able to argue any and every side, makes intellectuals often treat the public realm as a personal show-off space to feed their needy egos. Giving these intellectuals power beyond opinion writing and participation in talk shows not only encourages this, but takes it to an extreme that could become potentially dangerous. Giving too much power to intellectuals has historically proven to lead to anarchic situations or deeply intolerant regimes.
Modern intellectuals in power have proved their ability to keep their personal egos out of the polit...

Havel has indeed gained incredible international attention since his participation in the Velvet Revolution that overturned communism in Czechoslovakia. While his intellectual appeal was recognized even before his transformation into a revolutionary leader and later a politician/president, his political skills have often been assessed in light of his previous intellectual achievements and not necessarily his actual performance as a president. In fact, his initial popularity declined significantly in the years that followed the revolution and reached a low point towards the end of his last mandate, with increasing criticism of his ability to manage the economy and deal with the necessary institutional reforms required for the EU accession process. While Havel continues to be paraded internationally to different universities and conferences, he seems to have lost much of his initial intellectual appeal and often appears as an exhausted intellectual who has been forced to make too many compromises that he simply was not comfortable with.
If politics is ultimately a discussion space meant to provide solutions and guidance for a nation an...

If politics is ultimately a discussion space meant to provide solutions and guidance for a nation and its people, then intellectuals are natural actors in politics. Their ability to see the larger picture, to commit themselves to ideas and principles, to understand the complexity of certain problems and to stick to the higher moral ground for the good of humanity as opposed to the good of the few, makes them ideal candidates for high-ranking political positions. There they can use their intelligence not merely to reflect and publish for a limited audience, but actually to implement and direct change.
Modern public intellectuals have become particularly savvy when it comes to thinking about politics ...

Modern public intellectuals have become particularly savvy when it comes to thinking about politics more practically and pragmatically. This has come particularly with the growth of fields such as political science and international relations that prepare individuals for a potential dual career. Colleges such as Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government or France’s ENA and Sciences Po equip their students to pursue an intellectual as well as a public service career; depending on ambitions, many of their graduates go on to become high-ranking political representatives. Many of these intellectuals are able to clearly draw the line between the realm of ideas and the realm of practical solutions. As a result they can use their background and intelligence to come up with creative solutions to problems. Encouraging more and more countries to vote public intellectuals into positions of authority would also create an international realm of dialogue that could promise to solve many problems in a rational and friendly manner. The alternative risks having presidents who are often not only a public embarrassment - nationally and internationally - but who also use and abuse power for personal interests.
The increased participation of intellectuals in politics has had a very positive effect on the refor...

The increased participation of intellectuals in politics has had a very positive effect on the reform process, and on the ability of countries to develop and play increasingly important roles in the international arena. Intellectuals educated in the West are starting to take over increasingly important roles in their home countries - from ministers to presidents in countries as varied as Ukraine, Bhutan and Tanzania - and are radically changing the way politics is done to the obvious benefit of their country. They are better able to deal with issues of corruption, to give hope to the electorate and move them away from apathetic positions, to encourage public participation in politics and allow for a truly democratic process in decision-making and setting national priorities.
As politics gets more and more complicated, especially in the international arena, intellectuals are...

As politics gets more and more complicated, especially in the international arena, intellectuals are better suited to lead and find solutions to increasingly complex problems. They have the ability to identify different sources of conflict, to connect larger social trends with specific side effects, to speak to different audiences and use the voice of reason to diminish harmful phenomena such as discrimination. These are all made visible by the presence of more and more intellectuals in the public realm through the publication of different opinion pieces and even talk shows. All these point to the importance of giving intellectuals more than the power of speech: a political position with real executive and implementation powers. One must not forget that it was intellectuals that inspired and help create the current framework of the state; they are also likely to be the ones to help redefine the functioning of the international arena.
Modern intellectuals in power have proved their ability to keep their personal egos out of the polit...

Modern intellectuals in power have proved their ability to keep their personal egos out of the political arena. A recent example of this would be Vaclav Havel, who has by many been considered to be the modern intellectual king. Havel’s has led his country over the most difficult ten years of the transition from communism to capitalism. He was able to transform himself into a practical, pragmatic politician who was also able to keep in mind the overall vision and values that should guide his country’s transformation, and became a very popular intellectual-turned-President. Havel continues to be well admired in both the intellectual/academic sphere, as well as the public/political and international sphere, and serves as a model for other countries in transition as well as other intellectuals-turned-revolutionaries.
If politics is ultimately a discussion space meant to provide solutions and guidance for a nation an...

Precisely because intellectuals treat ideas and situations as hypothetical and abstract, they are more likely to confuse the imaginary realm with the real world in which we must all live. Their mindset and training encourages the treatment of problems from positions that are neither practical nor realistic. Intellectuals tend to believe that discussions, historical awareness and specialized research alone can provide solutions to problems. This makes them less able to negotiate with irrational actors and interest groups. They can also be slow to exercise power decisively in circumstances when this is necessary in situations that could snowball into more dangerous crisis if too much time is wasted in dialogues.
Modern public intellectuals have become particularly savvy when it comes to thinking about politics ...

Intellectuals pose an equal if not greater risk than self-centred politicians. It was with the help of intellectuals that several totalitarian regimes came to power and that ideologies such as communism came to dominate a good part of the world, bringing harm to millions of people who were forced to endure harsh living conditions, punishments and the highest level of individual and collective control known to mankind. The persuasive power of intellectuals allows them to easily build a strong enough following to justify the social and political search for utopias at the cost of just about anything. There is thus no guarantee that electing an intellectual would necessarily provide for better policies or a better future. Managing a country often requires more than just a striking intelligence: it requires the ability to recognize important actors, to understand power games and make compromises without losing a sense of direction. Furthermore, the pragmatic intellectuals turned politicians act more as regular politicians then academics, and thus change their approach to problems significantly.
The increased participation of intellectuals in politics has had a very positive effect on the refor...

What some call an increased participation of intellectuals in politics, others can interpret as simply an increase in the quality of public servants in general. Many of the ‘intellectuals’ that join their home ministries and even presidential office are in fact nothing but better trained public servants and government officials. These need not necessarily be confused with intellectuals, for their passions are often different than the ones exhibited by what we think of as traditional intellectuals: the world of ideas, books and writing. Many of these people are not original thinkers, nor do they have an innate inclination towards activities that we consider ‘intellectual’. In fact, many of them are trained in very practical aspects of their specific fields of activity and approach politics in much the same way as their colleagues. While it is indeed a positive thing to have politicians who are better educated, this does not by any means necessarily turn them into intellectuals.
Irrational leaders make the possession of nuclear weapons dangerous

Leaders sometimes do not rationally make decisions, nor do they have the best interests of their people at heart. If these leaders were to obtain nuclear weapons, there would be nothing stopping them from using them for the purpose of causing mass destruction. Values including honour and national glory can sometimes be seen to be of higher importance than that of the long-term survival of the state. It could be argued that some leaders like Kim Jong-Il do not care about their people, and have no respect for the sovereignty of other nations. They therefore cannot be trusted to act rationally, and it would be unwise to expect them to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before pursuing any destructive course of action. Some governments might be so blinded by ideological imperatives or incorrect analyses of their own capabilities that they may act ‘irrationally’ by conventional definition. For example, Iran has stated within the last decade that it wishes to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. Such an antagonistic statement, based on cultural/historical rather than strategic grounds, suggests that Iran’s anti-Semitic ideology is strong enough to justify the use of weapons of mass destruction. Iran might also falsely believe that Western powers would be unlikely to retaliate, given their previous troubles with interventions in the Middle East. While we may see such reasoning as irrational or deluded, it is reasonable to argue that, given the recent actions and statements of the belligerent Iranian regime, such a course of action might be considered. Related authors: James Stegenga, Scott Sagan, Barry Blechman, Barry Wolf, Martin Hellman
It is immoral to use the threat of nuclear annihilation in order to achieve foreign policy aims

People cannot just be used as a means to an end. In order for the theory of nuclear deterrence to work, a nation has to issue a credible threat of retaliation against innocent people in the case of a first strike. However, this blurs the distinction between innocent and guilty people, needlessly punishing members of a nation for the actions of their government. Related authors: Steven Lee, Gerald Dworkin, Peter Beckman, Jeff McMahan, Daniel Farrell
Nations should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons in self defense

In the current international arena, there is no guarantee of safety or peace, and each nation must build up its own defenses to combat the anarchy of the state system. Nuclear weapons are a powerful tool that nations can use to defend themselves: the chance of a nuclear power being attacked is incredibly low, and these weapons are seen as self-defense mechanisms. Many countries have renounced first strikes, but wish to hold onto their weapons in case of attack. There is no reason a ban should exist on nations' attempts to protect themselves, and such a ban would violate their sovereignty. Related authors: Beth Polebaum, Victor Utgoff, Ted Carpenter, Charles Pena
The abolition of nuclear weapons would actually incentivize the development and use of even more dangerous weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons

The existence of nuclear weapons actually encourages the development and use of other dangerous weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons. This is because chemical and biological weapons are relatively easy to manufacture, and smaller states may see nuclear proliferation as a threat to their safety, and in order to counter these nuclear threats, they may build up their own arsenal of alternate weapons (such as chemical and biological warfare). But there is no evidence that nuclear weapons even deter chemical and biological weapons in the first place; the origin of chemical and biological weapons attacks is almost impossible to trace, and thus nuclear deterrence is actually of very limited effectiveness, as deterrence assumes knowledge of the original attacker.