BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the recession will go, our public transport will remain

The recession is only a temporary(Booms and busts are all part of the business cycle in economics) phenomenon. People have to fasten their purse strings a bit. People have to watch what they spend and they have to be more shrewd in their business choices. The Government has to be more shrewd in how it spends public funding. However, this recession will pass. It makes no sense for the British government to cut costs from the public transport sector when those infrastructures we lay down now will last longer than the recession which will pass on its own.
Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immedia...

Hosting does not leave a beneficial legacy. The demands of the Olympics are very particular, an 80,000 all-seater stadium, pools, horse tracks, beach volleyball etc. Many of these stadia will never be used again after the end of the games. Even in Australia, which has a very strong sporting ethic, underused stadia in Sydney are costing the taxpayer $32m a year in maintenance. In the long term, the money spent on these stadia would be much better off used to build affordable homes and transport infrastructure which is designed with local residents in mind rather than with the intention of impressing IOC members. As far as tourism goes, Greece may even have lost out economically in 2002-03 as potential visitors stayed away, frightened off by stories of disruptive building works, security worries and fears of over-crowding.
The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal ...

The bidding process itself is heavily political and so it is very possible that a good city will spend £20m on a bid only to lose to a weaker candidate. The way the IOC works with each member deciding which city they wish to vote for means that personal relationships and international tension can count for more than the quality of the bid. For example, American foreign policy is thought to be disadvantaging New York in the 2012 bidding process. Given that the Olympics are ‘rotated’ between continents, if a city fails to be selected it will be 12 years before it has another chance.
Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and ...

Hosing only affects one city. In large countries like the United States or China, the benefits of the Olympics are almost entirely focused on the host city. Even in smaller countries, the benefits of a football match played outside the host city or a training camp are negligible. Capital cities are often chosen (after failed bids from Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000 the IOC told the United Kingdom that only a bid from London was likely to win), which concentrates growth and development where it is least needed.
The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point b...

The bidding process takes too long. Bidding officially takes only two years (unless a city fails to make the shortlist), but most cities spend nearly a decade working on their bids. Obviously the bidding process costs money but it also ties up the land needed for any future Olympic Village or stadia from being developed until the bid outcome is known, as well as diverting government funds away from other sporting events and activities.
Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impac...

Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impact and have looked favourably on cities that locate their Olympic Villages and stadia in deprived areas in need of regeneration. The 1992 Barcelona Olympics were used as a means to completely overhaul the port and coast of the city creating an artificial beach and waterside cultural area that became a lasting tourist attraction. Along with cleaning up areas and new stadia, Olympic Villages release between 5,000 and 20,000 new homes which governments can chose to hand over as low-cost housing (as is proposed for London 2012). Whilst these projects could be completed without the Olympics, the need to provide an overall package (transport, accommodation, stadia, greenery etc.) for a set deadline means that there is far more incentive to get the projects done. An example of this in London is the plan for a new £15bn underground rail system called ‘Crossrail’, first proposed over 20 years ago but only now being developed because of the attention surrounding the London 2012 bid. The fact that international scrutiny will follow the building program means that it is far more likely to be completed to a high standard (consider the detailed coverage of the preparations for Athens 2004).
Hosting creates a 'feelgood factor’. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds internati...

Hosting creates a 'feelgood factor’. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds international sporting events. Think of Paris during the World Football Cup in 1998 or Sydney during the 2002 Olympics. Even sporting success abroad can unite a nation (for example the England Rugby Union Team’s victory in the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia). Governments are aware of the huge potential for boosting national pride and national unity. The Paris 2012 bid has used a well-known footballer, Zinedine Zidane, who is the son of an immigrant to stress how hosting the Olympics would bring Parisians of all backgrounds together. It is partly because of this ‘feelgood factor’ that so many people want their city to host the Olympics (97% of Parisians and 87% of Londoners want the 2012 Olympics).
Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immedia...

Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immediate profit, the cost of the regeneration and improved infrastructure means that this is not a big problem as long as the losses are not huge. The Olympics showcases the host nation to the world and most hosts have seen a boost in tourism in the years after the Olympics (Australia estimates it gained £2bn extra tourist revenue in the four years after Sydney 2000). During the games between 60,000 (Paris 2012 estimate) and 135,000 (New York 2012 estimate) jobs are created providing skills and training to local people.
The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal ...

The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough.
Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and ...

Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing.
The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point b...

The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point because of the intense media scrutiny that accompanies the games. During the Cold War both Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 were used by the USSR and USA to show their economic strength. Seoul in 1988 used the games to demonstrate South Korea's economic and political maturity. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are seen by many as evidence of China’s acceptance into the global community and a way for her to showcase her economic growth and acceptance of the West. For New York, the 2012 bid is a way of showing that the post-9/11 healing process has been completed and that the city is ‘open for business’ despite the terrorist attacks.
Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impac...

Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event.
Hosting creates a 'feelgood factor’. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds internati...

There is no guarantee that a city will experience a 'feelgood factor'. In Athens many of the events had empty seats as the Greek team failed to do well enough to capture the local imagination. Where tournaments and games have successfully created a ‘buzz' it has been because the host nation has done well (England reached the semi-final of Euro 96, France won the World Cup in 1998). The fact that this ‘feelgood factor’ can be had even if the team is winning on the other side of the world means that there is no need to host the Olympics in order to get it. In any case, any Olympic excitement will be shortlived compared to the years of disruption and congestion which a host city will suffer in the run-up to the games, due to the massive building work and security worries which are now necessary.
GM foods could be manipulated to deal with global warming

The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatised to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there maybe a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions.
The problem is distribution not quantity

Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that GM technology is over sold. The problem is not that there us not enough food, but that the food that is available is not being distributed. “Today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night” [[The Guardian, Science Blog, 23rd January 2009]]. Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what needs to be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops.
Common agricultural policy of Europe see many tones of food go to waste

Whilst we may see food go to waste currently, in the future this may not be the case. The world’s population is increasing rapidly, and the predictions by the Royal Society show that the food supply we currently have cannot cater for the population boom that will occur in the future. By investing in GM crops research, something which there has not been enough of to say definitively whether GM foods are safe or not, we can hold the technology for future use. Whether we decide in the future that we need it, or that we do not need it is an issue for the future. The least we can do now is to invest in future technology so that a solution is there should we need it in the future. Leaving such research until there is not enough food everyone is not good enough; the research needs to be done before the problem occurs and the time is now.
Common agricultural policy of Europe see many tones of food go to waste

The European Community set as one of its objectives ensuring that agricultural areas in Europe are not poor area. To increase the profitability of agricultural trade, Europe subsidises the costs of foods to European farmers by buying any surplus. Originally this was to encourage the agricultural markets in Europe so that the Community could become self sufficient. This plan worked, but perhaps all to well. Now, Europe owns a vast amount of surplus food which is either sold cheaply to third world markets, stored, or simply destroyed. The problem with dumping the food on third world markets is that then third world farmers make little or no profit from their crops, so they in turn have no incentive to become involved in agriculture. This distribution of food problem needs to be solved before GM crops are investigated as an option.
Quality not quanitity.

This argument asserts itself that the effects of GM foods are not investigated fully enough. Surely if GM crops can potentially save thousands of lives by providing themwith nutrition then we should not hault the progress of our investigation. The more we look into the technology the more we will discover. But this will not be done whilst Britain still has a ban on GM foods. Few research companies would be willing to invest capital into this area when such a ban is in place as it is an extra hurdle should the trials of GM foods be a success. If we perfected our techniques then the DNA would not change as a result of being in a different environment. In addition, a mule may not be fertile, but it is still a living creature that has its uses. If GM foods were analogous to mules then I would consider them safe.
Quality not quanitity.

These days we should look at the quality of food available not the quantity. GM crops have not been investigated thoroughly to asses whether they are safe for human consumption. The problem is not merely that ‘GM crops are not natural, and natural is best’ as some hard liners may argue. The problem is that Genetically Modified crops have their DNA taken from natural backgrounds and then are put in a completely new environment and it is hoped that they have similar effects. However, we cannot be one 100% cure that the DNA has not reacted with something in the new environment causing undesirable effects. It can be compared to a donkey and a horse cross breeding. Their DNA can produce a mule fawn, but mules are infertile and as such, they are not as productive as either the donkey or the horse. Similar problems in food can occur, and these risks should not be taken.
GM food could be developed to grow in poor soil areas

Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilisation at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions. This would mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.
In some cases, luxuries can only be afford by state

Few things are more precious than water in sunbaked Afghanistan, where daytime temperatures can hit highs of 60 c and the Arghandab River provides irrigation and drinking water for local residents, but not Canadian soldiers at their forward operating base in Ma'sum Ghar.[[ http://thehamiltonspectator.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/809431%5D%5D After a war, many of the corporations that provide water for the citizens suffer from the attacks and fall into disrepair and it is the government that have to provide because in many cases will be the only standing up at the very end. Privatization has not been a solution for promoting capacity expansion. In fact, obtaining the political backing and general citizen support for private participation has proved to be difficult in many regions of the world. Having the resources during or after a national crisis is about extension and capacity. Offering the service and jobs for the population and privatization has been associated with the following: substantial employment reductions—freeing up resources for investment and mixed impacts on prices. In some cases, privatization is preferred over government operation; the media industry for instance, should never be run by the government, it would in fact be unconstitutional but utilities like water is a totally different story. At the bottom line, in the eyes of the people the state is the ultimate responsible” and it should have their own ways of protecting the citizens.
State owning water is a frightening idea

We wonder if the opp team can tell Africa where should they sign up to make Dr. Etan Bar, CEO of EWA deliver an ISRAEL21c for every citizen needed for water. Of course it would be a great idea but an utopia as well. This team understands that ownership of the resource is a highly complex definition and may cause misunderstanding. We are not suggesting giving free bottle water to everyone but the company that provides this product should be owned by the state. This condition will empower the representatives to act and response to a critical possible water situation, instead of begging some foreign company if they could help. It is not up to a state to close every single river but to build a water purification plant to provide clean water for the citizens will need a couple of doors that will remain close. The state is the designated representative to provide for their country and should be smart enough to make the decision that provides the best for them, as it happened in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2000 [[http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/Cochabambafacts0305.pdf]], where they privatized the industry and the cost of the resource increased more than 35% and for the record, the concession was terminated only because of the civil unrest and the state of emergency in Cochabamba and not because of any act done or not done by the international shareholders of Aguas del Tunari. The privatization gave place to a major civil manifestation and it came back to the national company. This team maintains the idea of water being a human right and transnational private enterprises care about their incomes, not the condition of the people or their capacity to pay what they ask for. They don’t put their interests in context, private companies just put their conditions like it happened with the Aguas del Tunari consortium. I suppose that during that period of confrontation, building a Rehabilitation center with tons of pools for the people would not be a smart choice. It may not be frivolous but just a little out of context. Do that gives more votes or not… who knows but it was only on the states hands to make the right decision on time, before many were killed.
Water is a human right

People pay to eat, to have a roof over their heads, to get a marriage license, My point is human rights include a right to own property, to get food, to get married. Sadly many people confuse, for example, Number 17 of the universal declaration of human rights, the right to own property, [[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]] with having the right to get a free house. What this right really means is a right to procure or build a house, and keep it if they legally purchased it, and for it not to be taken arbitrarily. Is very important here to make the distinction between ownership and supply. Since the motion asks that the prop. prove both should be had by the State, it's important to say that one thing is an entity (company or state) closing up every access to natural water supplies (by fencing up a river for example) or tainting it (poisoning a well), and a very different one is this same entity investing money on pipes and the technology needed to take it right to someone's tap. The first entails ownership and the second supply. I want to say that no entity should have ownership of the water supply. They should only have the stewardship of it. They should have the right to charge others for the service of supply citizens clean, safe water right to their house tap. Citizens in turn should have the right to sue a State or company in a fair trial if and when their own right of procuring water is violated. An example of this principle in action is the lawsuit brought against the Argentinian State by the Paynemill Community. "In this case, the water supply of an indigenous community, the Paynemil Mapuche Community, in Neuquén, Argentina, had been polluted with lead and mercury by an oil company."[[http://www.righttowater.info/code/legal_4.asp]] The case shows that the government shouldn't be trusted to own the water.
A mixed system: let’s have the best of both worlds

"Private funding runs into ideological problems. We need to be more humble. We have to adapt to local realities." Surprisingly, the countries that doesn’t have a budget as big as the biggest water corporations are the most needed countries and the one that have more casualties because of this issues. Now, why is that? Why wouldn’t they go out to those small countries and provide them with the most important element in live. Let us respond to that… there is no business. "Due to the political and high-risk operations, many multinational water companies are decreasing their activities in developing countries," says a UN's world water development report. Many companies, it says, have not been able to make money and are now concentrating on less risky markets in Europe and North America. So, if this great huge companies decide not to approach the most needed countries and only few give support to the poor governments to develop a sustainable way of managing their own way of supplying water, are we going to let this people die? You say most people over the world is getting along at the very least with their basic needs but 1 out of every 4 deaths under the age of 5 worldwide is due to a water-related disease. That is the reason they get along. There were one of the three that didn’t die and they are old enough to provide for themselves. "Water privatization in developing countries has failed. Despite this, the UK government and the World Bank insist on supporting it at the expense of the world's poor.” [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/22/globalisation.water]]
The ownership and distribution of water is a natural monopoly

There is nothing natural about a monopoly. It entails the use of force. The opp. of this debate hates monopolies, be them of the state or state sponsored. They say that people can't wait for a business to start or for a company's decision to go to remote locations. We agree, but to create a state monopoly doesn't help these people and in fact it does them a disservice. No matter how much prop says things like "production must be guaranteed", creating a monopoly doesn't guarantee anything. On the contrary it pretty much raises the possibilities that if the government won't /can't do it no other interested party will be there to provide service. It would be like closing private schools to ensure education. Absurd.