BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The youth are getting a raw deal

In most western countries the ‘baby boomers’ (those who were born between the end of the second world war and the mid-1960s) could be considered to have led a charmed life. They were the beneficiaries of free schooling and university education, then of an expanding economy that provided enough jobs, and finally high pensions. David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, estimates that the boomers are set to take out about 118% of what they put in to the welfare state.[1] The current generation on the other hand in some countries are having to pay more for their education and then find there is no job available. To make matters worse they are likely to be paying more for their elders’ pensions (which come out of current workers national insurance not that which was paid in by the boomers themselves) and healthcare and then will have to work longer for a smaller pension themselves. This means that if spending remains on its current trajectory most spending will remain directed at the baby boomers for decades to come. [1] Reeves, Richard, ‘The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children’s Future by David Willetts’, The Observer, 7 February 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts
Leaving large numbers of young people unemployed could be dangerous

Allowing high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment to continue could be disastrous. When people lose hope they are much more likely to turn to violence, or towards crime and drugs. There are clearly extreme examples of this; one cause of the second world war was the great depression and feeble recovery that preceded it, similarly in Africa according to the World Bank 40% of those who join rebel movements are motivating by a lack of jobs.[1] A new World War, or succession conflicts, are unlikely, though not impossible, in Europe.[2] Much more likely however are riots and social unrest aimed at government; youth unemployment was a spark for the Arab Spring. In the west youth protests such as the occupy movement or indignados have so far mostly been peaceful[3] but they may not remain that way without hope of improvement. [1] Ighobor, Kingsley, ‘Africa’s youth: a “ticking time bomb” or an opportunity?’, Africa Renewal, May 2013, http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2013/africa%E2%80%99s-youth-%E2%80%9Cticking-time-bomb%E2%80%9D-or-opportunity [2] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the Euro is a threat to peace’ http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/international/house-believes-euro-threat-peace [3] ‘The youth employment crisis: Time for action’, International Labour Conference, 101st Session, 2012, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_175421.pdf,  Pp.2-3
The government should not prioritise one age group over another

The government should not be playing favourites when it comes to government spending. It should not prioritise one age group over another, just as it should not prioritise one ethnic group or religion over another. The government has just as much responsibility to the middle aged or elderly as it does to the young. Rather than artificially deciding to spend more on certain age groups government spending should clearly just be based on what provides the most value for taxpayers’ money. In some cases this may mean spending on youth but it could also mean spending on the elderly.
Older people have paid into the system.

Those who are retiring today were promised good pensions that they could draw from their early sixties. They paid into national insurance, and other pension schemes on the assumption that they would get a good pension at the end of it. Doctors are a good example of a group that have paid a large amount into their pensions and expect to get a large pension in return. At the moment the UK’s NHS pension scheme pays more than £2billion per year into the treasury than it takes out.[1] The public purse has gained from boomers payments for pensions for years and they are responsible to pay the boomers back with what they were told they would be entitled to. [1] ‘Our response to government claims about the NHS pensions dispute’, British Medical Association, http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/negotiating-for-the-profession/industrial-action-pensions/dh-rebuttal
Aging means we will be spending more on the old, not less

There is simply no room to be increasing spending on young people as an Ageing population means that western nations are going to have to focus more resources on the elderly. A larger elderly population will mean less tax take for the government as there will be less people working, at the same time there will many unavoidable costs. The average cost of retires households to health services is £5200, compares to just £2800 for those who are not retired.[1]  The expansion and progress of medical science has been amazing, we can treat many conditions that were incurable. But this means many more are living longer with medical support, which is costly. A US study estimates total healthcare expenditures “increase substantially with longevity, from $36,000 for persons who die at the age of 65 to more than $230,000 for those who die at the age of 90”.[2]  Clearly the government cannot both increase spending on youth and pay more on healthcare for the elderly at the same time.  With healthcare a matter of life and death it seems clear which should be prioritised. [1] ‘The ageing population’, parliament.uk, http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/value-for-money-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/ [2] Alemayehu, Berhanu, and Warner, Kenneth E., ‘The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs’, Health Services Researech, vol.39, no.3, June 2004, pp.627-642, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/ (does not show pages but near the end)
The youth already have a lot of spending focused on them

It may be true that there is little spending specifically on ‘youth’ but that does not mean there is not a lot of spending young people more generally. Government education budgets in Europe vary but are generally between 10-15% of government spending,[1] added to this should be the 2.3% of GDP spent on family/child benefit[2] (since European governments typically spend about 50% of GDP this generally means about 5% of spending). While this may not seem like much compared to 26.89% of the population being under 25[3] we need to remember that most other government spending (with the exception of pensions) is not age targeted and so also goes pretty proportionally on youth; children and youth are as likely to use healthcare, young people use roads and public transport, many in the military are under 25 etc. Since young people are more likely to be unemployed they are also getting a larger proportion of welfare spending on them. Added to this there are areas of government spending which don’t really go on any age group, such as interest repayments on European government’s debts. It is difficult to see why the government should be spending yet more on youth when they already receive a large amount of spending. [1] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Public spending on education, total (% of government expenditure), The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GB.ZS [2] Mossuti, Giuseppe, and Asero, Gemma, ‘In 2009 a 6.5% rise in per capita social protection expenditure matched a 6.1% drop in EU-27 GDP’, Eurostat, 14/2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-014/EN/KS-SF-12-014-EN.PDF, p.5 [3] European Union, The World Factbook, 6 May 2013, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html
The government must do what is in the long term interest of the county

It is unclear that the long term interest of the country really means investing in youth. Instead it should mean anticipating the changes that are necessary to ensure future security, health, and prosperity for every citizen. This is what happens with investing in energy; we anticipate that if we don’t invest in it for the future the lights will go out. But we also need to change along with changing circumstances so taking the comparison with energy further that means not just investing in power generation but in renewable power generation. Considering current demographics this should mean spending more to ensure that health services are ready for an older population and ensuring that pensions are on a stable long term footing rather than more on youth.
The youth are getting a raw deal

It seems a little unfair to blame baby boomers for their fortune in terms of demographics. They were simply lucky to be born when they were. Most countries are already considering the impact of aging; the pension age for example is being raised almost everywhere.  And of course it is wrong to suggest that the youth are getting a raw deal in every possible area; for example they have much more technology to play with, and average incomes are much higher than they were when the boomers were young. While the government may not pay for as much for the youth parents and grandparents step in, in the UK £470million is contributed to child trust funds each year by grandparents and they provide an estimated £4billion worth of childcare each year.[1] [1] Mitchell, Michelle, ‘Debate: Is the baby-boomer generation selfish?’, totalpolitics, http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/5278/debate-is-the-babyboomer-generation-selfish.thtml
Leaving large numbers of young people unemployed could be dangerous

Scaremongering is not the best way to create policy. Clearly leaving large numbers of unemployed young people could be dangerous but so could large numbers of unemployed of any age. Every government wants more economic growth and to solve unemployment but they should be focusing on how to bring the economy as a whole back to growth rather than specifically on youth unemployment. When this happens unemployment will begin to fall. Artificially focusing on reducing youth unemployment will simply prevent broader action to regain competitiveness. It should be remembered from communist states that it is possible for government action to create full employment while destroying the foundations of the economy.
Older people have paid into the system.

Pensions are not paid by what the retiree paid in during their lifetime but by those who are earning and paying taxes and national insurance while the pensioner is drawing their pension. Current pensioners did not pay for their pension but for their parents’ pensions. In the UK “In 2008 there were 3.2 people of working age for every person of pensionable age. This ratio is projected to fall to 2.8 by 2033.”[1] With fewer workers for every pensioner pensions are clearly unsustainable and so should be reduced. [1] ‘The ageing population’, parliament.uk, http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/value-for-money-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/
Aging means we will be spending more on the old, not less

In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a rethink about which treatments are affordable as a part of free healthcare. In the United States deciding what treatments are worth the cost is left to the market, in more centrally organised health systems as is the case in Europe there is a regulator or commission that decides. In the UK this is NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which decides what drugs are worthwhile based upon quality-adjusted life years and usually does not recommend treatments that cost more than £20-30,000 per QALY.[1] The answer then would be to drop this down to a lower figure. [1] Dreaper, Jane, ‘Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’’, BBC News, 24 January 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21170445
Land titles mean single women can build decent homes.

Due to a lack of access to formal titling women have been pushed into acquiring, and living in, slums[1]. Land titling programmes benefit slum dwellers and inhabitants living in informal housing across African cities. Titles for women mean a sense of security to inhabit space is provided; and women will be encouraged to invest in their land. Titling provision has resulted in slum upgrading, investing in changing the structure of urban Africa. Second, being recognised as title holders means women are able to demand new services - such as access to water, sanitation, and lights. Such demand will ensure improved health for women. Women are able to use the law to interact with the state and change their future by demanding crucial services. [1] Slums are officially defined as a group of individuals living in a household which lacks safe housing, sufficient living space, access to water, adequate sanitation, and/or security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003).
Land titles will help end violence against women.

One of the main forms of gender-based violence includes violent acts carried out by husbands or partners[1]. Evidence shows the provision of land titles reduce risks to female health and vulnerabilities to violence. Women become accepted as, and confident, decision makers within their homes as titling redistributes power within households. Furthermore possessing a land title enables safer sexual relations by offering legal protection. Research in Kenya has shown titles will reduce the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS and rape[2]. Due to gender norms widows are forced into traditional ‘cleansing’ rituals, rape and forced marriage, in order to hold onto physical assets and inherit their rightful land from in-laws. Land titles are therefore a means of tackling gender discrimination and providing freedom of choice on how women can act. Women are less likely to be forced into unsafe sex, following the death of their husband or divorce, to occupy the land. Additionally, returning to the case of Kenya, FIDA have reported how a woman's choice to divorce her partner often leaves many property-less[3]. Women may be more likely to remain in an unhappy, dangerous, marriage without changes in property legal systems. [1] Defined by WHO, 2013. [2] Sweetman, 2008. [3] Migiro, 2013.
Land titles, and markets, in Africa remain corrupt.

On the one hand, land titles do not provide increased tenure security for women and will legitimise gentrification. In urban areas, if women are granted rights over a desired plot of land holding titles may be more of a curse. Poor women may be forced, and enticed, to sell their homes at prices under their market value. Titles often results in urban gentrification, as the spaces become legally mapped and property markets work for the elite. On another hand, land titles in African states are based on bad governance, rent-seeking, and corrupt desires. The idea land titles will provide empowerment, security and poverty reduction is based on a Western model of the state. However, the boundary between what is legal and illegal in African states remains less clear-cut. The case of Zimbabwe’s ‘Operation Murambatsvina’ (‘Restore Order’) in 2005 is a case in point. Mass evictions occurred despite the homes being classified as ‘legal’ and titles being held. Livelihoods were destroyed as a result. The ability for land titles to empower in a repressive or mercurial state is questionable. Propositions for land titling are based on inadequate blueprints and ideas of the state.
Land titling will increase female poverty.

Titles provide a path for the state to gain, and mobilise, resources - such as taxation. Therefore the provision of land titles to women will mean they are forced to pay taxes (including land tax and additional government taxes). Such a reality has major consequences for single female-headed households who represent a disproportionate number of the poor[1]. Increased expenses will impact multiple dimensions of their livelihoods. [1] For debates on Female-Headed Households in Africa as the ‘poorest of the poor’ see further readings: Chant, 2007.
Land titles provide a voice in the legal system.

Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’. In the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003[1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system. [1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.
Land titles are being granted in high-risk areas.

Land title provision for women across Africa is occurring in informal settlements and slums - therefore the question is whether titles provide an ability to relocate through the property market. First, land titles in the case of South Africa have left inhabitants stuck on the lower-end of the property market[1].  Lemanski (2010) shows homeownership, in Cape Town, does not bring the hoped for financial return. Low-income households are unable to trade their asset (land or home) due to low returns, preventing movement into upgraded houses and areas. Second, dangers emerge as to the degree of future sustainability when considering climate change and the hazardous nature of environments. In Mathare slum, Kenya, landslides are a frequent occurrence. The provision of titles in such areas does not have sustainable.   [1] Lemanski, 2010.
Land titles will develop entrepreneurial women.

Are women really able to access credit and finance, and should they be able to enter such markets if there is an inability to return payments or get equal profits? Accessing credit with a high interest rate may put women are greater risk. We need to think about the credit lenders, what they charge, and if it can be paid back. Women may be less willing to use their primary asset to gain credit due to the potential risk of loss. Studies in Madagascar[1] have shown limited differences in the degree of plot investment on land whereby titles were held, or not. The provision of a title has minimal impact in the case of rural Madagascar, suggesting women will be no more ‘entrepreneurial’ than initially believed[2]. Land speculation may become more of a concern with the provision of titles, as land is believed to be of value and thus occupied, but with minimal investments made. [1] Jacoby and Minten, 2007. [2] See further readings: Fenske, 2011.
Land titles for women today will provide inter-generational equalities for the future.

Having rights does not ensure there will be an awareness of how to use rights and education on what such rights do. To ensure land titles contribute to promoting gender equalities women, and girls, need to be made aware of the meaning of rights and how to use them. Land titles are not the means of providing inter-generational equality, but rather one piece of the puzzle. To ensure equality education and awareness is required.
Land titles do not solve the main issue for women - rental markets.

Renting holds fewer benefits for women than ownership. For empowerment more women need to become home, and landowners. The provision of land titles to women means they have a sense of stability. In the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, a majority of young, female renters engage in different forms of transactional sex due to the expense of renting[1]. Equality in land titling will ensure women are able to save and seek safer livelihood options. [1] See further readings: Action Aid, 2012.
Land titles will develop entrepreneurial women.

Access to titles is a means of poverty alleviation for female-headed households and women. Having recognised land rights means first, their land becomes exchangeable and profits can be gained through different strategies. Second, women are able to access credit and finance with the granting of a formal land title. Women are able to become entrepreneurs establishing businesses, agricultural cultivation, and the ability to sell property and land. Such investments have positive benefits for the whole economy. For example by encouraging crop cultivation to small-scale farmers food security can be provided, and the agrarian market revitalised.[1] In the case of Ethiopia, the economy remains highly dependent on agricultural production. The security land titles provides has encouraged agricultural cultivation to women nationwide. Women are able to build a new food market and earn an income to sustain their livelihoods. [1] See further readings: Oseni, 2013.
Land titles are not affordable to poor women

The cost of obtaining land titles is higher than the benefits sought. Research has shown that although there is a desire, by women, to obtain land titles the reality is land titles remain unaffordable. To empower land titles need to be more affordable to include a diverse range of women able to obtain titles and rights[1]. Having expensive titles limits empowerment to the comparatively wealthy. To make matters worse the provision of titles increases the burden on women - introducing additional costs, time commitments, and worries on top of normal activities. Cheaper, and more effective, alternatives are available to provide rights and security of tenure for women. For example Toulmin (2009) emphasises the potential role of using local institutions to register rights. Community organisations, for saving (etc) as in South Africa which prevent the need to go to loan sharks, are a positive alternative to empower women.[2] For real empowerment women need to be included in the process of designing land titles. [1] See further readings for the case of Dar-es-Salaam: Ayalew et al, 2013. [2] Frederikse 2011
Land titles do not solve the main issue for women - rental markets.

About 50% of the poor across Africa, including women, used rental accommodation[1] , many are landless. Although it remains debatable as to whether women enter the rental market by choice or not, renting has been noted to provide a greater degree of flexibility. Renting provides flexibility to relocate and manage finances effectively over a short-term. Land titles may therefore increase immobility to those using the rental markets; and enable landlords to raise prices of renting. Titles don’t help those who rent. [1] Edwards, 1990, p.255
Land titles mean single women can build decent homes.

Although titles may initiate slum upgrading the quality and time-scale of services provided remains questionable. Services can be of poor-quality as states rush to meet demands, and the area whereby women are given titles may remain unsafe and unhealthy spaces. Titling therefore does not fundamentally improve, or provide, services and infrastructure. Further, women are given the burden (time and physical) of building decent homes. The provision of land titling transfers responsibility from the state to women. In many cases across Africa land is not owned by the state, but rather private actors and international organisations. Such realities have implications in whether women are able to invest in, and build, homes as land titles need to be respected, and recognised, by multiple actors not only the state.