BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Blood sports are cruel since the suffering caused can be unnecessary and prolonged, especially in th...

Hunting is an integral part of effective wildlife management and makes a positive contribution to the countryside in general. Only those animals that are edible or pests are hunted - and they would have to be killed anyway regardless of whether it was for sport or not. Hunting with dogs is not especially cruel as it is natural to many animals to be chased, and the adrenaline they experience limits their suffering. Hounds may rip a fox apart, but this only occurs after its death, which is usually very quick.In America, taxes collected from hunters are used to fund conservation work and monitor the number of animals that need to be killed each season. Evidence from America shows a strong positive correlation between increases in hunting and the numbers of game species, largely because hunting provides an incentive to protect land rather than manage it purely in the interests of agriculture.
Another moral objection is that people take pleasure in the process of often-pointless killing. Man...

Hunters are not bloodthirsty individuals- they derive their enjoyment from the thrill of the chase or practicing their marksmanship. The key difference between blood sports today and practices that have already been banned, is that badgers, bear and chickens are not vermin whose numbers need to be controlled. If animals have to be killed anyway, why does it make any difference that people enjoy hunting them?
Wanting to ban blood sports is not the same as rejecting the need for the culling of animals. In Br...

Many of the supposed alternatives to hunting with dogs are impractical. For example, it is illegal to use guns in proximity to public roads and footpaths. It may not be possible to reach traps in time to prevent animals injuring themselves trying to escape. Traps are also indiscriminate as to what they catch. Shooting or hunting with hounds ensures a kind of natural selection with the weakest or sickest animals killed while the fittest survive, thus maintaining a healthy population. Death at the hands of hound or hunter is much quicker than a lingering death due to starvation or disease.
An argument that highlights the economic costs of banning blood sports is analogous to arguing for t...

Many rural communities would be devastated by a ban on hunting. Figures from the US estimate that some 1,000,000 jobs depend on hunting, (which contributes $30 billion each year to the economy). In Britain figures from the Field Sports Society estimate, that hunting is worth £175 million to the economy with some 11,000 jobs depending on the hunting industry. Whilst these numbers might seem relatively small as a percentage of the workforce, the jobs are concentrated in a small number of areas across the country. The majority of those who seek a ban live in cities where their only experience with animals has been with animated or domesticated creatures. This encourages anthropomorphic attitudes that cloud judgements on rural issues and animal welfare. While opinion polls might be against hunting, any change in the law would be the result of a tyranny of an ignorant majority.
it has been to long since an true irish vote has been heard

it is about time the Irish people are allowed a say in their own future without the interference of a foreign occupier The British design the North of Ireland the way that it is so that the majority of the vote would stay in their favour. Ever wonder why the British didnt take the whole of Ulster, because that would mean most of the population would have voted for a republic. The broke my country in two so that they could protect their own. During the War of Independence the whole country cried for a Republic at that time there was the majority but the british didnt appected that some they found away of keeping as much land as possible by giving themseleves the majority. Both Tyrone and Fermanagh have a majority to turn to the Republic why are they not allowed to put that to the british crown.
Segregation results from the border

To create a United Ireland would simply create division between Unionists and their links with Britain. No integration would come from it. Can you honestly believe that paramilitary organisations will happily join with the rest of Ireland? Of course not. Conflict would re-emerge and the Troubles would return . This in turn would create more divisions and result in a long period of segragation within the northern counties and take many years, even centuries to over come.
Ireland was stolen by the British

The british have NO right to agrue there case for ownership of any of this land. They stole the country from the Irish people and moved there own people over to rule over us. It is the Children of these british people that came over to rule over the Irish people that rights the british goverment say they are up holding by keeping them part of the UK... I say they have no right to this land as their fathers before them stole the land and have to right to decide what is done with it. The Irish people have made it very clear over the past 800 years that we do not want british rule. I believe that there is only one way that we can move forward and reunite this great land and that is to have a Sinn Féin goverment in the South and Sinn Féin as the head party in the North and form the United Republic. Our greatest weapon is our refusal. 1. No i am not accusing unionistsof not being Irish, I am accusing them of not appecting that they are in fact Irish and if they can not appect that they have no right to any part of this country. Anyone that was born on these shores and who accpects that they are Irish people has a claim to the ownership of this Land. 2. Right well ok then what about the people living in the North who want to be part of the Republic. I would never deny anyone their freedom of speech, but no matter who comes out on top of this agrument there will be on side that is unhappy with the result. 3. Yes lets look at Sinn Féin's record in the Irish Election. THEY ALMOST TREPILED THEIR SEATS in the last election and have built a good stand for the next election. In the North Sinn Féin are going to become the largest Party come the assembly election and the unionists know this. This is going to send a wave a patriotism through this whole Island of Éire. It will no longer be a question of will there be a United Ireland but When will it come to pass, and it will be sooner reither than later. Erin go Bragh
Theres No Point in Two Irelands

Ireland is NOT one nation, even regardless of the border. A nation is a large group of people of a nationality based on culture, tradition, language, history, economic links etc. In the north east of Ireland their is a nation that differs from the nation in the south. Therefore, to think Ireland is of one nation is wrong, thus supporting the fact there is a very reasoned point behind the creation of Two Irelands. It should be remembered that Ireland was not united before the normans arrived. p.s. how does being in Great Britain make Scotland less deserving of independence when it had a much longer history of being an independent united nation?
Persecution of a Unionist protestant minority may emerge

They believe this because of how Catholics were treated by the British. So it is generally false, and we need to convince them otherwise. Yep i cant wait to persecute all the protestants in ulster within a united ireland............come on dont be silly we live in the 21st century here. Besides the catholic church is a dying away in ireland and loosing alot of its power. Religion doesnt play a big role anymore in ireland like it did in the past even during the troubles. What type of persecution do unionsts think they will recieve anyway. Do they honestly think an irish goverment within a united ireland will Jerry-mander electorial wards, refuse jobs to protestants or deny them socail housing in favour of catholics. I dont understand this idea of persecution. By the way the majority of points raised on the (no to a united ireland) seem quick to point out the emergence of loyalist paras under a united ireland. Peace for unionists only means peace within the UK seemingly.
We can work together and build on our beautiful country.

Ireland all the people of Ireland the country together would be a force to be reckoned with on the economic tourist and trade areas. The Glass is half empty with us in separate realms.Look to the future of our economy and childrens futures together, with the best prospects for us (needing eachother) to build the best Ireland that is possible. They want us to keep us exasperated so we are divided and do not become to strong.
Theres No Point in Two Irelands

Two Ireland's was Only ment to be Temporary The British Should just keep to the Agreement and Give Ireland {north/south} its Complete Freedom or Else Give the North of Ireland a Better Choose than at Present {federalism , confederalism , unitary state } because at present our Powers are Smaller than even Scotland {Which is in Great Britain} or else Soon i can see a War more worse than the Troubles Ever where for Irish Indepedence we Deserve are Freedom as Much as the South or The United States . the British Empire is Gone so why is the North of Ireland still in the United Kingdom it does not make any sence they have their choose of a Few Islands before they Even get to us {Isle Of Man Etc.} which have Federalism
We want our country back.

Ireland has been like a training camp for the brits for tens of years but for the recent 35 years we have stood firm,solid and unwavering against second class citizenship and the bigitry of the stormount so called goverment.We could have been where we are now many years ago if it had`nt been for the hatred and the whole rotten system.I have yet to hear one unionist mp say sorry for the hurt and the degradation and the pain they caused to the nationalist people over all those years.Its time at least one unionist stood up and said "Sorry"for stealing your country and making our fathers fathers lives a misery.
Britain does not need or want Northern Ireland

Unfortunatley for Irish nationalists strategic considerations are no longer a defining point. The Falklands aren't strategically important, but Britain fought to keep them and not give into bullish tactics from Argentina. In NI they will not give into bullish tactics from Sinn Fein or the IRA. Nor will they betray the wishes of the majority in NI. By surrendering NI simply on strategic considerations would be counter productive: paramilitary activity would go through the roof- the British army would need to get involved via the UN to keep peace (the Irish Army would be hopeless at this)- this in turn is strategically counter-productive.
Ireland belongs

Ireland belongs to the irish not the english we did not ask you to come over here but we are telling you to go. I am from the North of Ireland and i am Irish not british, Ireland belongs to the IRISH people not the british, so anyone from any part of Ireland that classily themselves as being british and not Irish have no right to decide what way the country is formed because Ireland belongs to the IRISH. An United Irish Republic can be formed where everyone can live in peace but peace will never really be possible unless all ties with britian are cut once and for all.
No to a united Ireland

Protestant settlers have been living in Northern Ireland for hunderds of years, to eject them in the name of a "United Ireland" would be inhuman. The wrongs of the Imperialism are neither here nor there, the current situation would mean that to go against the will of the majority in the region (Northern Ireland) would be a simple act of revenge over an event that took place hunderds of years ago. The 'British' Army did not exist during the first settlements; These settlements are more like the settlements in America. If they are illegitimate settlements then the United States is by implication illegitimate. That land therefore belongs to the native americans, just like the land in Ireland would supposedly belong to the 'native' Irish. Furthermore, foreign occupation is the wrong term. The people of NI are happy to be part of the UK. The British Army, if occupying, would be on the streets. They are not. Thus, it is a manifestation of 21st century national ideals of self-determination: the majority of people of NI want to belong to the UK. It may also be pointed out that at the time that the normans first invaded Ireland was anything but united itself. May I point out, that Northern Ireland, was 'planted' as opposed to 'settled' Foreign occupation is the correct term. We have fought against foreign occupation for 800 years, and continue to do so, thankfully now on more peaceful terms. I find no record in history of the English fighting for 800 years to get rid of the Normans.
Peace has been achieved....so don't put it at risk

So we convince unionists/loyalists that a united Ireland is for them, and Ireland will be an island of equals. We are forgetting that many men and women died during the troubles for a cause that was mixed with political and paramillitary ideas. I beleieve in a united ireland were everybody is equall but the big question is is if ireland and england will co operate. When the loyalist People and orangemen become part of Ireland they will feel more welcome to march and show there belief, they march against belief and march up a street because they think they can when they become unite with Ireland peace will reign and they will be more welcome. think about it a united police force no more dissident threats a united Ireland is the way to go its the way forward.
United We Stand

1/ Trouble part 2 will be more likely if a United Ireland was given. Loyalists would definitley take up arms. 2/ If the bill for NI would be smaller in a united Ireland then living standards would fall in the north. This would simply put people off the idea, even nationalists. 3/ Only a democratic vote in favour of a United Ireland can justify the move, and that seems a long way off (maybe 50 to 100 years and even then an ushering in period would be required). 4/ A referendum on the Good Friday Agreement was held in 1998 in north and south of Ireland. In NI a 81% turnout voted 71% in favour of the Agreement and 94% of those who voted in the ROI voted in favour of the Agreement. This shows that people prefer the maintainence of NI in a peaceful manner.
Financially the Republic of Ireland would not be able to afford it

on the contrary if a united ireland was achieved the north would flourish with low taxes, subsidies will not be needed as much.but also the govenment would immediately cut jobs in the public sector,to make it financially viable. the only major expenditure is the re-orginisation of the PSNI into a reinforced Garda siochana and also the creation of another army brigade for northern ireland aswell as support for such brigade. In the days of the celtic tiger(economic boom),Ireland had hge surplus's each year,if anything northern ireland benefit by a united ireland.But irelands economy must be in a good state at the time and also a deal would have to be reached financially with the unionists. If an agruement ever comes to money I have this to say I would rather a mud hut and be free.
If you live on this island your part of IRELAND

This seems to assume that one island means that it should all be under the control of one nation which is not a very good argument. Not only is it a kick in the teeth of the Scots (it rather implies it should remain part of the UK for eternity) but also there seems to be no reason why there should not be borders on an island - Haiti/Dominican republic, North/South Cyprus (bad example I know), Indonesia/Papua New Guinea, probably a few more. Just because an island is one island does not mean it should be one nation. Both halves may even have the same history/culture but this still does not mean they have to be united.
it has been to long since an true irish vote has been heard

Polls have tended to show that the Northern Irish wish to stay as they are.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Ireland_Poll.png]] Does this mean it will stay that way, no. When it does the UK should accept a popular vote that states unequivically that Northern Ireland wishes to rejoin Ireland. This however has to be the entire northern irish population and no one else. Irish in Ireland and the UK should have no say over the matter. The "wishes of the whole of Ulster" argument are a complete red herring. The provinces of Ireland are simply approximations of ancient kingdoms and used as convenient divisions for some regional organizations. They are not areas representing any distinct and homogenous political or cultural identity. When the majority of Ireland rightfully expressed its wishes to part fom the United Kingdom, a large group predominantly concentrated in one area wanted a different direction. They could have been in a frew counties spanning more than one of the "provinces" it doesn't matter. It seems inherently reasonable on an Ireland with split views to say there is enough room for two distinct states. It may have been been incovenient for Nationalists living in the north, but it was also inconvenient for Loyalists in the south.
Britain does not need or want Northern Ireland

britian financially costs them about seven billion pounds a year. they see it as a financial burden on them and also having an unstable region on their doorstep.of course they want to get rid of it,strategically they can cut their expenditure and re-organise their military to more needed roles in afghanistan. If the troubles were to kick of again uner a united ireland. irish troops have been involved in peace keeping operations around the world(kosovo,chad and lebanon) and are more than capable of stability.
Ireland was stolen by the British

That sounds very like you are accusing unionists of not being Irish simply because they have only been in Ireland for 300-400 years. Denying a right to argue a case for ownership of parts of Northern Ireland would be denying rights to the thousands who wish to remain with Britain and would seem to be denying any right to freedom of speach for them. Given Sinn Fein's record in Irish elections so far you are rather jumping the gun in terms of ideas of a Sinn Fein government. If Ireland was to be united the they would lose a major raison d'etre so there would be a good chance that support for them would decline.
No to a united Ireland

Britian in Ireland is a forgien occupation and always has been. The people of Ireland should never have been segregated and split by an invading army. Britain created secterism and conflict on the island of Ireland, the people of Ireland lived as one for centuries before an invading British Army came and planted their settlers mainly in the North, which is why the majority of unionists are in the North, and why the 6 occupied counties where partitioned from the rest of the Country. Britain should never have had any political power or presence in Ireland in the first place. They dont ,they wont and they never will because we have not and will never accept british rule in Ireland.In every land where England has planted its seeds it has only brought forth rotten fruit.The indiginous people did not eat of this fruit and therefor where not blighted all they wanted was that which belonged to them.Return the crown jewels to those you stole them from,return the Rosetta stone to the Egyptians relinguish the rock and many more stolen items,lives,cultures and cruel deeds and leave us to get on with our lives as we see fit.
United We Stand

With partition there will never be peace, because nationalists/republicans will always want a united Ireland. To prevent the Troubles Pt. 2, we need to convince unionists that there is a rightful place for them in a united Ireland, along with nationalists, as equal citizens. In the current economic climate, partition hinders the two states of this country. Britain does not need Northern Ireland and does not want to have to pay for it. The bill will probably not be as high in a united Ireland. Unification is going ahead. As Britain doesn't want us, and they can't democratically hand us over against the will of the majority (they would if they could), we wait until the majority is nationalist and hold a referendum. When the vote for a united Ireland is passed, then it is time to decide how to go about a new Ireland. Unionists need not be afraid that they will be tramped on. The government will welcome them, respect and consider their views as those of citizens of this country. The Irish constitution demands that votes such as that for Lisbon be put to the public. Does the UK respect your opinion in such a way?
Northern Ireland was created against the wishes of the majority of Irishmen and women

This is a clearly pro-republican argument and ignores the wishes of the huge majority of Protestant unionists who dominate Northern Ireland. To say that Ireland is predominantly Catholic is to pretend that Northern Ireland doesn’t exist. Northern Ireland has been set in stone as a political reality and to destroy it will create turmoil and death. In 1912-14 the Home Rule crisis came about because a large concentrated section of the UK wanted to break away. These Irish had a good point. This is called 'self determination'. However, on the island of Ireland, another concentrated population in the north east decided it wanted to remain part of the UK. This, on the same grounds of argument, is self-determination. Both are legitimate. Joseph Lee, an historian, wrote: "The Scotch-Irish subjective sense of separate identity, the ultimate criterion of nationality, drew sustenance from a history, language, culture and economy undeniably different from those which nationalists choose to consider essentially Irish." If the Irish are different from the British, then the Unionists are different from the Nationalist Irish. Thus, to say that Irish independence is justified is to admit the argument of Unionism is also justified.
In the politics of today there is a noticeable commitment to the virtues of private enterprise and c...

In principle, there is no need for the government to relinquish control of the NHS. General health care for all is a widely acknowledged right in this country, and problems within the NHS due to overburdening of doctors, etc. will not be resolved through shifting the managerial responsibility. If the government wants to improve the NHS they should raise taxes in order for the public to raise the standard of a national health care service for all. People have always paid for public services through taxation – this is not a new radical solution.
The NHS is undoubtedly in crisis. It has been argued that the standard of treatment for patients is ...

This also raises another issue: the nature of health as a basic human right – not one to be dependent on how much health care you can afford. . In addition, since health is predominantly determined arbitrarily why should one person pay more for more extensive treatment, just because they have the misfortune to contract a more serious illness? A National Health Care systems fosters more equality in society.
The health service at present effectively punishes those who work hard and are involved in individua...

Private healthcare already monopolises the best doctors, enticed into the private sector by better pay and better working conditions. Privatisation clearly widens the divide between rich and poor, between those who can afford health care and those who cannot. Society functions such that those who are more successful have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate. This is evident in all other public sectors – health is one of the most fundamental of these.