BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civic duty

Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote.[1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes. [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012
Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me

Parties go to the centre because that is where the votes are. You are perfectly at liberty to vote for more minor parties. If you want nationalisation vote communist, clean energy vote green etc. Your vote may not elect a representative but the person who becomes your representative is likely to see which single issue parties received votes in his constituency and act accordingly. Ultimately only one party can govern at a time so it will never be the case that everyone can get their way on the issues they are interested in, but if you don’t vote no one will pay any attention at all.
Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote

We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote[1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections.[2] [1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011 [2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011
Civic duty

Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium.[1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it. [1] ‘Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting
No right to complain

We all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them.
Have your say

Democracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is "the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard."[1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote! [1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012
Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me

Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist.[1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans,[2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre.[3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views. [1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012 [2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012 [3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008
Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote

In both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore not assume that these people are all not trying to tell us anything rather they are pointing out that they know how little their vote counts so see no point in casting it. In the United States only 32% of voters agree that only having two parties is good. The non-voters could well therefore be telling us that there needs to be a radical change in the system before it is worth their while voting – ‘you make our vote count and we will begin voting again’.[1] [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012
Hold politicians to account

I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175[1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this number at 710,767[2] with so many other voters how will my attempt to hold them to account actually matter? [1] ‘Parliamentary constituencies’, parliament.uk [2] Burnett, Kristin D., ‘Congressional Apportionment’, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011
We don’t just vote for ourselves

The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter.
My vote does not count

This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elected if the non-voters vote together. To illustrate lets take a look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the UK, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,[1] with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.[2] However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.[3] [1] Electoral Calculus, Majority Sorted Seats [2] Wells, Anthony, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, UKPollingReport, 2010 [3] ‘Vote 2011 Scotland elections, Kirkcaldy’, BBC News, 11 May 2011
Politicians will simply ignore how we vote

Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events.
Hold politicians to account

For the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower[1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied).[2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election. [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012 [2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010, (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher)
We don’t just vote for ourselves

You are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century.[1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919.[2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years.[3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in. [1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk [2] ‘Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union [3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012
Banning trans fats in uneconomical

A trans-fat ban would hurt small restaurants the most. Carlie Irwin argues: “Since most of the big chains have already started the process of eliminating trans-fat from their food, the ban would be no big deal to them. But small, independent restaurants are another story. The potential ban has small restaurant owners sweating and nervously eyeing their deep fryers. As the St. Louis Business Journal points out, many small restaurant owners don’t have the ability to effectively and efficiently reformulate their menu items. So banning trans fat could mean that your favorite independently-owned fried chicken joint down the street will be shuttering its doors.”(17) Consequently, a trans-fat ban would breed legal exceptions and inconsistencies. For example, in Illinois bakeries were exempted from their ban because lawmakers knew that it would drive up their costs and hurt the bakeries specialty items. Many other small businesses would be similarly affected Restaurants and other specialty vendors who use trans-fat products on site would also be affected. Lawmakers then have a choice of either reducing the effect of the ban and including lots of bureaucratic exemptions or punishing these businesses.(9) Tina Pantazis, the manager of Dino's Burgers, which operates two hamburger outlets in California, argues: "The only effect [a ban on trans fat]  is going to have on the consumer is that we are going to have to raise our prices."(19)
Trans fats are uniquely unhealthy

The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)
Healthier equivalents of trans fats exist

A ban on trans fats will cause specific harms which cannot be fixed by switching to other fats or food preparation methods. Particularly hard hit would be small businesses, who would struggle to make the transition because they no not have the budgets to research alternative ways to make their products taste the same and so are likely to end up at a disadvantage compared to their bigger rivals. Moreover all businesses would suffer from reduced shelf life for their products.(7) Such a ban does not make economic sense, and despite propositions claims trans fats cannot always be easily replaced. We use trans fats because they work well. For example they are needed in hydrogenation in order to convert liquid vegetable oils in to being solid, needed for example to make margarine, the amount of trans fats used for this can be reduced but not eliminated. Moreover, Michael Mason of The New York Times argues: "for preparing certain kinds of foods, there are few alternatives besides the saturated fats that have long been high on the list of artery-clogging foods.”(18)
The state should ban trans fats to protect the public

The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)
Trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy

Health experts agree that banning trans fats would save thousands of lives specifically because the substance is dangerous even when consumed in very low quantities. They are simply a dangerous additive, which adds no extra value to food. 'Taste' considerations are simply a red herring, as switching to other fats would produce no meaningful change in taste, as has been demonstrated by several large food corporations who have made the shift without disappointing their customer base. The fact that other foodstuffs may be dangerous is an argument for better education or regulation regarding them, or -if merited -their own bans, but is not a case against banning trans fats. Trans-fats are significantly different to all the other unhealthy foods listed by side opposition, as trans fats are easily replaceable by less unhealthy substitutes, which things like sugar are not.
The government should provide information to consumers, not restrict choice

Calling for an "education campaign" to inform consumers of what they are eating may sound sufficient, but this is very often just not enough. No matter what the government does, people will simply miss the "instructional" information provided by the government and will continue to consume trans fats without full information regarding its negative effects. In such circumstances, it is the government's job to step in a take action through a ban or other measures. Moreover, when  a harmful trend such as the use of trans-fats becomes endemic and entrenched, it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to always be aware of the fact that a food has trans fats in them and make the "choice" to eat or not to eat them.(15) Producers include trans fats into foods without adjusting labelling, further affecting consumers’ ability to purchase foods that do not include trans-fats. The trans fats hidden in many processed foods are worse for a person's health than saturated fats. In 2005, CHOICE, an Australian watchdog tested more than 50 processed foods and found many contained trans fats at unacceptably high levels. After re-tests it was still clear that, while the fast-food chains had reduced their levels of trans fats, and some of the foods tested previously had eliminated trans fats altogether, others now contained even more than before. Foods such as pies, cakes and doughnuts may contain trans fats without the consumer even knowing about it.(16)
Banning trans fats in uneconomical

Many large and small chains have already made the transition to alternatives to trans-fat, so it is entirely possible. These alternatives will get cheaper with time as they are used more frequently and as the companies that produce and distribute them increase their sales volumes and are able to sell them for lower prices, meaning that small and individual restaurants will indeed be able to afford them and survive. Moreover, the health concerns in this debate override purely economic concerns or the closure of small businesses, as lives are involved.
Trans fats are uniquely unhealthy

One of the purposes of government is identify possible threats to health and protect the people from these threats. The fact that some government regulations seem 'silly' or misplaced, or cannot easily be understood by lay-people is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all, or for not having regulations in the case of trans fat. The commentators who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what, if any, regulations or styles of regulation they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commentators think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgements about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts can make recommendations based on the likely responses and desires of the average, informed citizen. Non-specialists’ capacity to absorb information on complex chemical and biological subjects is quite limited. The majority of us are reliant on the research of others for most of what we know.(5) The opinion of the experts on the dangers of trans fats is conclusive:  trans fats are unsafe. The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe.' This allows the use of trans fats in whatever way food producers desire. ’Safe’ for the FDA means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use', which no longer applies to trans fats. This 'generally regarded as safe' status should be revoked which in turn would greatly restrict its use in food.                                                  The other option would be to allow local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, but this would be more costly and lead to a patchwork of regulations.(1) The most effective method of controlling the use of trans-fats is through centralised, nationally applicable policy making. The poor and young are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of trans fats; at the very least, the threat posed to these groups justifies the use of informed regulation. Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health said in 2010: "There are great differences in the amount of trans-fats consumed by different people and we are particularly concerned about young people and those with little disposable income who eat a lot of this type of food. This is a major health inequalities issue.”(6) The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harms that they are not best placed to understand or avoid themselves, and so a ban on trans fats would not only save lives but would also be legitimate under the government's role to protect when citizens cannot reasonably protect themselves.