BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why a flat tax is fairer

 In a welfare state such as the United Kingdom, everyone enjoys the same access to services provided by the government, and so it should stand to reason that everyone should also contribute equally to the funding of those services. As not all individuals are equal in their wealth and income, it is impossible to do this on the basis of everyone paying in the exact same numerical amount of money. However, this parity can be achieved by everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax to the government, and this is exactly what a flat tax is, and so equality in contribution to government services (mirroring equality in access to government services) is achieved. This principle of equality is important for two reasons: firstly, if wealthier citizens feel they are being unfairly burdened by the current requirement that they pay higher percentages of their income to fund government services than those on lower incomes, they may feel a disincentive to work hard (which creates wealth for the whole economy), or may even be driven abroad to states with lower rates of taxation or to tax havens.[1] Secondly this removes the ability of the majority of a population to engage in what the French economist Bastiat called 'legalized plunder', where they (as the majority of voters) assign higher percentages of income tax to the wealthy in order that the state may appropriate and redistribute it to them for their own use.[2] With a flat tax in place, there would be no ability for anyone to vote for a tax rise simply on other people and not on themselves, and thus such policies would receive more consideration and not be used by the majority simply to appropriate the property of others through the law. Thus a flat tax is fairer as it equalized the basis on which everyone pays for access to equal services, and prevents a poorer majority from victimizing a wealthier minority through punitive rates of income tax for the wealthy, which may cause them to flee the country for other states with less taxation. [1] Ramos, Joanne “Places in the Sun”. The Economist. Feb 22nd 2007 http://www.economist.com/node/8695139?story_id=8695139 [2] Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2007
Practicalities

It would be a much more complex process to ban smoking in film than the proposition suggests as any restrictions would have to adhere to other legislation that is in place, for example the Human Rights Act across Europe, it should also not restrict general notions of freedom of expression. Another issue is as to whether smoking in films created before the ban should be retrospectively re-graded. If so, two main problems occur. Firstly, a massive amount of old content would have to be re-watched which would be great expense for a ban which may prove not to be all that cost effectively in relation to its purpose of reducing smoking rates; secondly, what would be the situation regarding content which is already owned by the populous? Putting a smoking ban in place would face practical barriers, ones which could be costly and ultimately not value for money, in relation to its primary purpose, as well as restricting liberty.
The state has no right to interfere in this particular form of free expression

One of the Government’s main roles in society should also be to protect its citizens from harm and do what is best for the majority of the country’s citizens, sometimes this may mean that some measures that may seem draconian should be put into place. If cigarettes were first launched today they would not be able to be sold due to their negative health effects. However, withdrawing them from sale now is not as simple as flicking a switch. There is therefore a strategy of reduction in place in many countries across the world. As can be seen with the bans on smoking advertising on television, this has not gone far enough to reduce smoking completely and the next logical step is to ban product placement within films. While it is in theory true that the Government cannot protect society from everything, it must be seen to be trying to do so regardless. While Governments should not over-interfere it is not as clear cut as to say the Governments should do nothing, as smoking remains a big preventable killer it seems only correct that the issue is addressed.
A blanket ban on depictions of smoking ignores the context that it might be used in by directors

A ban would not be retrospective. Films which currently contain smoking would not be banned but it would be reasonable to expect both or either a warning to be including along with an anti-smoking advert. The artistic license argument is a hard one to reconcile, the proposition would argue that the health of a nation physically is more important that art.  The ban would simply force film makers to be more creative in their output rather than simply relying on old tropes. It is understandable that smoking may want to be included to place a film within a certain time and space, such a ban could take cases like this into account and allow smoking on some instances whereby it is crucial in setting a scene. Where smoking is used on the odd occasion it should not glamorized in a way which could be deemed to encourage taking up the habit. Problems therefore regarding artistic license can be solved with a strong ban still in place.
Film does not directly influence the actions and decisions of individuals

Films may not have a direct influence on viewers but they certainly do have a strong effect on their audiences, if this were not the case marketing departments would not spend millions of pounds on advertising, marketing research can demonstrate the power an advertising campaign has had on the uptake of a product or service, therefore a ban on smoking can be justified as media does have the power to influence. Take for example the Superman analogy, while it is true that children do not believe afterwards they can fly, for they would have learnt this to be impossible, this does not nonetheless stop them trying to imitate their on-screen idols by dressing up and pretending to fly. Superman (and more specifically Superman 2) is a film which is aimed primarily at children yet it contains one of the most famous examples of tobacco product placement within a film whereby Marlboro purchased for $42,000 22 exposures of their logo and got Lois Lane, a role model for girls, to become a chain smoker something which never featured in the original comic book (Vernellia, R. 1999) While it is true other factors play a part in deciding to smoke this does not mean we should ignore a source of a major influence, this is not an attack on culture it is designed to try and better society.
Depictions of glamourous and famous people smoking could be seen as an endorsement of the habit

In our highly mediated society we are bombarded with news and imagery of celebrities with many young people looking up to them as role models. Many of the most famous people which the public tend to look up to are Hollywood stars which regularly grace our cinema screens, there power to influence is great. A study by Dr Maltby shows that where previously parents, teachers and friends had the biggest influence on young people it is now more likely to be celebrities. (Cassidy, S. 2004) If young people therefore see celebrities smoking on-screen, all be it while playing a character, they could be strongly influenced to start the activity themselves to emulate their role model. Allowing smoking on screen by celebrities, films and their directors are condoning, glamorizing and ultimately encouraging smoking. Banning smoking in films would strongly help in the fight against smoking as it would stop young adults copying their idols.
Tobacco companies may use movies to circumvent bans on advertising cigarettes

When various bans across different parts of the world began to be put in place on the advertising of tobacco products the companies behind them had to find both loopholes and alternative ways of advertising their product to both current but most importantly new potential customers. One way of continuing to advertise was to invest in product placement within film which many bans did not block. The ban on advertising in the UK was introduced in 1991, by 1995 the instances of smoking in films had increased fourfold and the appearance of cigarette brands went up by a massive 600%. (BBC, 1998) A study by the American Lung Association also found after reviewing 145 movies “...that PG-13 movies contain more tobacco use than R-rated films intended for adults.” and “In a similar study the following year found that eighty percent of the popular PG-13 movies examined depicted tobacco use.” (Media Awareness Network, 2010) This clearly demonstrates that tobacco companies are using films to advertise their products, and particularly towards young children, this should be regulated.
The act of smoking is often portrayed postively in films

When smoking is used in films it is often portrayed positively without clearly demonstrating the bad effects it has. A study by Gunasekera, H. et al titled “Sex and Drugs in Popular Movies: an Analysis of the Top 200 Films” found that smoking was portrayed in 68% of the films and that they “...tended to portray their use positively and without negative consequences.” This normalization of smoking is hindering the effort to try and stop people taking up smoking, by regularly seeing the activity young people will consider the activity socially acceptable which gives the wrong message needed to help stop the activity and minimize health related problems from it. While films are most often fictional and produced for the purpose of entertainment people still do learn, whether rightly or wrongly, from them, it is arguably socially and morally irresponsible then for directors and films studios alike to show smoking in films without clearly demonstrating the negative side to it as it is painting an incorrect representation of what it is to be a smoker.
Practicalities

Movies are already currently regulated by film boards which provide films with an age classification as to who can see the movie based upon its content. Currently film boards cover content such as violence, sex and even drug use, of which smoking is not currently included, adding the extra caveat of smoking into the analysis of film would not cause too many practical issues. The main hurdle for adding such regulation would be getting the guidelines right as to what can and cannot be shown and what is appropriate for certain age groups to see or not see. Creating the guidelines would have to involve both public and expert consultation but on the whole putting restrictions in place would face little if any practical problems.
The state has no right to interfere in this particular form of free expression

The state stepping in to block smoking in films is arguably a step too far into infringing freedom of expression, while smoking is bad this does not mean the state should feel the need to completely protect us as a society from it. Highlighting health issues is acceptable but we cannot be protected from everything. The government should not be trying to ban smoking in films when it is such a small issue in the grand scheme of things, especially when there are other more important issues in the world that need tackling. One of the Government’s main roles in society should be to keep the country running and not to micro-manage it, as individuals we should be able to make our own decisions to both be able to deconstruct the use of smoking within a film and to secondly be able to make the choice as to whether to smoke or not for as long as the product is legal.
A blanket ban on depictions of smoking ignores the context that it might be used in by directors

Banning films displaying characters which smoke would jeopardize film makers' artistic license. The depiction of characters smoking can be a significant part of the plot, or an important character trait, or used for another artistic device. Moreover, prohibiting images of smoking in films potentially reduces the range of films which can be produced with an authentic representation of its time. This proposal also fails to take in to account films which currently exist which contain smoking, would for example Disney’s children’s movie 101 Dalmatians have to be banned due to the villain smoking? It is clear even to children that smoking within this context is being portrayed negatively, as it would be in most if not all children's films, should this film be banned despite the fact it may actually influence children not to smoke? Hundreds of family movies would be hindered by this silly regulatory system.
Film does not directly influence the actions and decisions of individuals

The idea that an audience member seeing smoking on film will directly influence their behavior is ridiculous, the Hypodermic Needle model of communications which  first suggested this as being true is now seen as defunct. Take for example watching a film such as Superman, simply because he can fly within the film it does not mean that the audience, including children, suddenly believe that they, with the aid of a cape can suddenly fly. Simply because I see a character smoking it does not suddenly mean that I am going to want to smoke. While it is true that we can all be influenced by popular culture it is not as simple to suggest that just because I’ve seen smoking in a film that I will take it up, there are many other factors in play of which education is a crucial one. If I know smoking is bad this will play an effect in my decision to smoke or not, other factors such as money and upbringing to name a few more will all play a role. Banning smoking in films as being the next step in reducing its uptake is dogmatic and wrong. Once banned in films will the state try and ban references to it in books? Culture should be protected and the ideal of liberty should remain.
Depictions of glamourous and famous people smoking could be seen as an endorsement of the habit

While it is most certainly true that many young people do look up to celebrity figures this does not mean to say that young people copy them 100% directly. The proposition is drawing its argument from the Hypodermic Needle Communications Model (Wilson, K. 2011.) which suggests that any message transmitted by any source is understood and accepted directly, this idea has subsequently been rejected by the academic world and basing an argument on it is ultimately flawed. This is not to say that young people do not copy film imagery but it is not a matter of the movie making them do it, young people ultimately make their own decisions. A ban of the imagery could in fact conversely make smoking more popular amongst youth as it would seem even more taboo. The real solution to stop the young smoking is education, banning smoking in films is petty and does not address the real issue the proposition is trying to solve
Tobacco companies may use movies to circumvent bans on advertising cigarettes

This raises initially the question as to whether tobacco advertising should be banned at all. As long as the product remains legal it should surely be allowed to be advertised on all the mediums that other products are allowed, some regulation due to the products age restricted nature is fair but perhaps the current ban is not. There are many things such as fatty foods which are bad for people yet they are still allowed to be advertised with little restriction The main assertion made by the proposition is that tobacco companies are purposely putting product placement within children's films in order to get them to smoke, however the study by the American Lung Association does not take into account how smoking is being represented within these films, there are many examples whereby it is the villains which are smoking and the audience is therefore not meant want to be like them. Based on proposition ideas the audience should, therefore, be repulsed by smoking rather than attracted to it, smoking in films it should not be assumed portray a positive image, in many case it may very well carry the opposite image.
The act of smoking is often portrayed postively in films

Films are on the whole produced for entertainment purposes, they should not be required to show the negative effects of smoking, on the whole any smoking that does happen tends to be minor, done simply to give you an impression of a character or to set a scene in a correct context. It is ridiculous to suggest that every time smoking is used in a film that the director must make sure the audience understands the negative sides to doing, the audience should already be educated in this. Would it be reasonable to have make sure that everything which may have a negative health impact should be made clear, take for example drinking alcohol, a common occurrence in the western world, should directors be obliged to tell their audience that drinking might be bad for you? If this were to be the case many films plots would begin to drag, they would be losing artistic merit simply due the Government wanting to display (or not display) state propaganda.
Reforming Oxbridge could cause a ‘brain-drain.’

Far from being swaddled in privilege, Oxbridge students are forced to work extremely hard. Making the universities more like mainstream institutions or former polytechnics would reduce the workload, relax the pressure and ensure some of the country’s top students are not pushed hard enough. This could lead, in turn to a flight of the best students overseas to places like Harvard. This has been the case in France, where universities in recent years experienced an exodus of the country’s best scientific academics to the USA.[1] Similarly, South Africa’s universities have suffered from many potential students and academics going overseas – leading to an increasing skills deficit.[2] The unique, driven approach offered by Oxford and Cambridge’s curricular and tutors has previously served to draw many overseas students to England; if the resolution were to pass, the reverse would become the status quo. Cost and national borders are rarely a deterrent to sufficiently talented pupils. This will then have a knock on effect as talented UK students who chose to study at Harvard, McGill, Monash or Utrecht might also be drawn away from the UK economy. The social and academic networks that students form during their time in university, along with the internship schemes they participate in often direct them toward employment with particular companies and in certain jurisdictions. A student who graduates from an American law school will be much more likely to seek employment with an American law firm. Love it or loath it, a place at Oxford is an achievement that many people at home and abroad aspire to and see as the pinnacle of success. It is conceivable that Britain would thus suffer a ‘brain-drain’ and reduced dynamism in its industries if Oxbridge was streamlined, potentially affecting long term economic growth, innovations in academic research and the development of new businesses.[3] [1] Maia de la Baume, ‘French Fear ‘Brain Drain’ to the US,’ The New York Times, 21 November 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/europe/22france.html (accessed on 25 July 2012) [2] ‘Brain Drain: How our thirst for academic talent hurts the rest of the world,’ Good Education, 21 June 2011 - http://www.good.is/post/brain-drain-how-our-thirst-for-academic-talent-hurts-the-rest-of-the-world/ (accessed on 25 July 2012) [3] Daniel Knowles, ‘Abolish Oxbridge? You stupid boy,’ The Daily Telegraph, 2 June 2011 - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100090395/abolish-oxbridge-you-stupid-boy/ (accessed on 5 January 2012)
Oxbridge encourages competition and drives up standards.

The belief that no-one can better Oxbridge is stifling to academic and social  dynamism. Oxbridge’s reputation is kept aloft by the cultural capital- by the collective valorisation of the Oxbridge “experience” and the social milieu that it represents- of the more conservative and privileged forces that dominate politics and industry in Britain, which arguably want to ensure networks of nepotism and patrimony among those that attended Oxbridge are kept alive and disproportionately influential. Other institutions can provide a far more specialist and nuanced perspective, but students and academics suffer from never being able to overtake Oxbridge due to entrenched conservative and class-based biases. Such attitudes hamper dynamism and progress in higher education.
Oxbridge encourages competition and drives up standards.

It is not because of some entrenched ‘Old Boys’ network that Oxbridge dominates – it is because of the undisputed[1] quality of the Oxbridge education.[2] Other universities should therefore work to keep up with and compete with Oxford and Cambridge, a mechanism which is far more likely to create excellence than forcing the Oxbridge institutions to adopt artificial handicaps. The world of higher education at large is not served by downgrading its finest institutions so as not to offend everyone who did not get into them.[3]  The same concerns were raised in France, when attempts to make the country’s top universities more diverse through government schemes led to increased worries that it would cause a lowering of standards.[4] The innate weakness of affirmative action policies is that they aim to bring in more people based on class, gender or ethnicity rather than on pure talent. This damages the credentials of any institution aiming to sustain a reputation for excellence. [1] UK University Rankings 20212, The Guardian, 17 May 2011 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012 (accessed 25 July 2012) [2] Philip Hensher, ‘Rejecting Oxbridge isn’t clever – it’s a mistake,’ The Independent, 20 January 2012 - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/philip-hensher/philip-hensher-rejecting-oxbridge-isnt-clever--its-a-mistake-6292041.html (accessed 25 July 2012) [3] Ibid., [4] Richard Kaahlenberg, ‘The French Twist on Affirmative Action,’ The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 July 2010 -  http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-french-twist-on-affirmative-action/25340 (accessed 25 July 2012)
Oxbridge is elitist

It is the education system that is at fault. It is a fallacy to assert that Oxbridge is nothing but a gateway to membership of the ruling classes. The universities simply offer excellence in teaching and research, shown by the fact that they consistently top all the major league tables in Britain, and indeed across the world.[1] If they cater more towards privately-educated students it is largely because of faults in the state school system, not the university. Therefore it’s arguably state schools that need to be reformed, not Oxbridge. Furthermore, the maligned entrance interviews can work to iron out biases in A-Level grades by allowing tutors to let candidates demonstrate skills and potential in other ways more suited to their personalities.[2] Abolishing interviews could therefore risk scuppering the chances of bright children who went to under-performing schools gaining access to an Oxbridge education.[3] [1] University Guide 2012, The Guardian, 17 May 2011 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012 (accessed  9 January 2012) [2] ‘In Defence of Oxbridge,’ Latte Labour, 4 June 2011 - http://lattelabour.blogspot.com/ (accessed on 6 January 2012) [3] Richard Lowe, ‘Why we shouldn’t abolish Oxbridge,’ Independent Thought, 1 June 2011 - http://www.independentthought.co.uk/?p=1453 (accessed 4 January 2012)