BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drugs are bad

The first argument of the opposition shows that they are trying to alter the debate. The opposition says: ‘We believe that in order to win the debate any side should prove that drugs are harmful / not harmful’. The proposition has never written and we will never state that drugs are not harmful! We cannot debate on this topic because that can be proved only scientifically. In the beginning of their argument the opposition has once again written that drugs can make people do crazy things. Well, we will once again remind them that alcohol can lead to the same consequences and that partial restriction of selling it will not solve the problem. Therefore, since alcohol is legal drugs should also be legal! The opposition’s first argument is divided in two - negative effects on health and harms to society. Ok, we can never prove that drugs are not harmful and we will never try to do it. But you can also never prove that alcohol and cigarettes are not harmful. The opposition has offered very interesting facts about the negative effects of drugs on health. We can also show you facts that prove the harm caused by alcohol and cigarettes. But we think it is pointless, because that are well known facts which do not need to be proved. The current debate is about whether the legalization of drugs will bring about more harms or more benefits to the individual and the society. When talking about health problem you agreed in a previous statement of yours that there is not direct correlation between the legalization of drugs and the use of them. Therefore, the consumption of drugs is the same no matter whether drugs will be legal or not. As we said if one wants to have drugs he/she will have it no matter whether drugs will be legal or not. So here we come to the economic effects of drug trade and consumption. Let us just inform the opposition that the retail market value of illegal drugs is $321.6 billion USD‘[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_economy#Illegal_drugs]]’ You can see the economic losses that are caused by the existing black market. The opposition states that drug addicts are not very beneficial to society. But they also agreed that consumption does not depend on whether drugs are legalized or not. So in both cases these drug addicts will be useless to society. However, as we proved when the black market turns into legal business taxes will be paid to the state. That is why the legalized trade will bring only incomes to the state. So what will be the result of legalizing drugs? Firstly, the same number of people will be drug addicts and thus useless. So the situation remains the same as now. Secondly, the taxes paid for drug trade will increase the incomes to the state’s budget!
Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else

Once again the proposing team has not impressed us with their reasoning. Let's identify some of the obvious flaws in their case: (1) The proposition believes that the only valid reason for limiting individual freedom is the harm that is done to the 3rd party. Even though we do not accept this as the only criterion, we want to show that, even with their criterion, the plan does not make sense. There are inherent practical reasons why it can be very complicated/expensive/restrictive to prevent an individual under the influence of drugs to not restrict the liberties of his fellow citizens. People can be very hard to control when high. For instance, substances like amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP can occasionally cause violent outbursts for some individuals [[http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/basicfax6.htm]]. Even though people are responsible for any crime under the influence of drugs, we believe that we should also do whatever is necessary to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. We do not see how it would be possible to put a policeman on every corner or trap drug users in places where they do not harm anyone. Since this is practically implausible, drugs should stay illegal. So what about alcohol, the proposition might say. Well, in some countries there are restrictions on selling alcohol during the night (Latvia, for instance). Here, the situation is identical. We recognize our inability to prevent crime from taking place if there would not be such a restriction. (2) We also do not believe in total individual freedom and want to advocate a more paternalistic approach. We will develop this in more detail in our arguments, but people often make decisions that they later regret. The state has better knowledge about the decisions that would be the most beneficial for the individual. So we CAN limit individual freedom if it helps our citizens to achieve outcomes that they value.
Decriminalising drugs will make them safer

We see no reasons how medical tests of drugs will help us to deal with HIV or hepatitis, which are caused by the usage of the same needle by many drug addicts, not by the quality of drugs. Clearly nothing prevents drug addicts from using the same needle for getting themselves a "drug kick" of a high quality drug, so their plan fails to tackle this problem. We agree that legalization of drugs could lead to a better quality. However, we believe that this reason is not the ultimate for legalizing drugs. There is an evil substance which is causing evil things by itself (addiction to it, damaged health and reduced intelligence, high possibility of dying from overdose, high possibility of committing crimes under the influence of it etc.) and in addition to that some secondary set of problems (a possibility to die from using the substance of a bad quality). The proposition now is solving secondary problems by legalizing the substance, but by that they are risking that the incidents of primary problems will sky rocket. We believe that the ultimate way of solving both primary problems and the secondary ones are harsher restrictions, control and public education, not legalizing and leaving everything for self-control. Anyway in case of legal alcohol, there is still a possibility to die from cheap low-quality alcohol. The same will be after the plan is implemented. The drug market will differentiate on high quality expensive drugs and cheap drugs of low quality, which put a user at higher risk while using them.
In addition to our second argument: The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest

The opposition tried to refute our second argument by citing some book (unknown to us) in which it was written that there is no clear consensus that the effect of the sweetest fruit is so powerful. We would like to point out that we do not have this book (we cannot verify the offered information) and we do not know of such researches at all. We will just support our argument by reminding the opposition of the story of Adam and Eva. We all know that the Bible gives us demonstrative facts of human behavior. So it is not accidental that the story about the sweetest fruit is documented in the Bible. On the other hand, it is common knowledge that when something is forbidden it arouses interest. That is a truism! It does not have to be proved!
In addition to our fifth argument: Decriminalising drugs will make them safer

Once again, it was not possible to enter text as a response to the previous argument. We suspect that it might have something to do with the length of the links and would like to ask the organisers of WODC to deal with this technical issue. To the previous argument: (1) We do not really believe that legalising one activity of these cartels (producing/selling drugs) will somehow help to deal with the other activities they are engaged in (blackmail, kidnapping etc.). The government has not really provided any reason why governmental control over one part of the business will result in control over others. We would like to point out, quite on the contrary, most legal gambling companies in Eastern Europe are controlled by criminal gangs. However, that does not mean that there has been a decrease in their other, illegal activities. (2) We believe that the proposition has misunderstood our response about Netherlands. They believe we have told that there is no correlation between the legal status of drugs and the usage of them. We would like to point out we didn’t. In one counterargument we stated that the proposition should interpret statistical data more carefully, since just showing us statistics on the usage of drugs for the US and the Netherlands won’t do anything good. We told that the higher rate of drug use in the US could be because of other reasons, not the illegal status of drugs. Thus they should present different kind of statistics if they want to support this argument. For example the rates of the usage of drugs in the Netherlands before the legalization of drugs and after it. Also it is worth noting here that not all drugs are legal in the Netherlands. On April 25, 2008 Dutch government has passed the bill banning hallucinogenic “magic mushrooms” after several incidents of deaths under the influence. [[Dutch Cabinet bans sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms in new retreat from liberal policies, Herald Tribune, October 12, 2007]] From 1 December 2008 these drugs are banned, leaving only cannabis to be legal. Since we debate about all drugs, the Netherlands example doesn’t work at all. (3) Even if this plan would eliminate most of the black market, we still believe that the harm of drugs is too big to pass this motion. More on the harms in our final argument. To this argument: Please see our final argument for a direct response. We believe that, even in a legal, perfectly controlled market, huge problems will arise.
There is no legal bar on the purchase of alcoholic drink and cigarettes, though both are often addictive

The British Medical Association has conducted a research which shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Moreover, alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes kill more people per year than the use of cannabis does(e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drunk driving etc.). Decriminalisation of marijuana will remove an unfair law in which substances far more dangerous than cannabis are legal while the possession and use of cannabis is a violation of the law
Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else

It is common knowledge that if one wants to take drugs, the fact that they are illegal is not a deterrent. People should be at liberty to treat themselves in any way they want to. Actually, there is no such law that forbids people to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn there be law forbidding them to use drugs? Of course, their use must not harm anyone else’s life. This means that the law should be amended in such a way that people will not be forbidden to use drugs, but they will be forbidden to violate the freedom and rights of other citizens. If this task can be acaccomplished with alcohol and cigarettes, it can be acaccomplished with drugs, too. After all the main principle of the Bill of rights developed by the United Nations is the following: ‘All human beings are born with equal rights and fundamental freedoms’. These fundamental freedoms defend the right of every person to do whatever he likes as long as he/she does not harm anyone else. You can download the UN Declaration of rights from here: http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/hrphotos/declaration_eng.pdf
Decriminalising drugs will make them safer

One of the most serious problems connected with drugs is the one of diseases – such as HIV and hepatitis – spreading as a result of drug users sharing hyperdermic needles as they necessarily get their ‘drug kick’ in secret. [1] If drugs are no longer illegal they will be safer because before reaching the market they will be tested by official drug testers and if they contain something of any danger to people they will just not reach on the market. Nowadays buying drugs from the underworld is quite hazardous as the drugs are not tested and one may well die because of taking drug containing deadly ingredients in it. [1] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/un-report-focuses-on-spread-of-hiv-through-drug-injection.html
In addition to our fifth argument: Decriminalising drugs will make them safer

The proposition team believes that the victims of low-quality drugs will be lowered to a much smaller number than the number of victims nowadays. And the reason why this will happen is not only that there are not going to be new addicts, but that drugs are going to be purified. We believe that overdoses and impure drugs are the main reasons for people to die from drugs. As we all know there is no dealer who will tell his customers that by buying this product they threaten their health or that there are special programs which help people to stop using drugs. Nowadays all member states of the European Union sell all the tobacco products with labels which inform the consumers about the risks of smoking. Such an idea can be applied to drugs only if they are legal. The results of this initiative are obvious. This report [1] shows that many people consider the effective, especially the people under 30, the age in which people are most susceptible to using drugs. Another point is that the country will offer free injections which will cost the country nothing compared with what it spends on coping with diseases such as AIDS. Imposing laws that bind the sellers to give a free unused needles will make drug consumers forget about using a needle twice. We are sure you will agree that no one will consider using another person’s injection if he or she can use his or her own. That is why we think that less people will die from drugs if they are legalized! That is the right thing to do. [1] http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/healt/australia2~5
The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest

The proposition has depicted a rather simplistic picture of reality. Yes, the effect of the forbidden fruit obviously does matter. The real question is - how much does it matter? Is the effect so great that it can be stronger than the decrease in consumption caused by the limited access to them? (1) We doubt the importance of the psychological temptation to consume something that has been banned. It is not a coincidence that proposition chose not to provide any empirical evidence that supports their hypothesis. In reality, the results of studies analysing reverse psychology in different contexts have been mixed and there is no clear consensus that this effect is powerful [[Sabini, Social Psychology, 1994]]. The example that they used certainly does not strengthen their case. Firstly, it is not even clear that the forbidden fruit effect played a role in the problems caused by the alcohol ban. Remember, the problem was not the increase in the use of alcohol, rather all the externalities brought about by the black market. Secondly, even if it would have worked in that situation, we believe that one example cannot really prove anything. The proposition should establish a mechanism that makes people react to the ban of drugs by increased consumption. (2) On the contrary, we believe that restricted access to drugs really helps to decrease their use. If drugs are banned, it becomes far more complicated to buy them. If its more complicated, less people will buy them. If less people buy them, less people will consume them. It is that simple. We believe that people often engage in individual cost-benefit analysis - if getting drugs will be too complicated/expensive, less people will make the choice they might regret later.
Introducing one working language would save the EU much of the money it now spends on translation se...

While 800 million euros may seem a high figure, the number is extremely misleading. The cost of language services at all the EU institutions is currently 0.8% of the total EU budget, amounting to a meagre €2 per person annually. Estimates say that after enlargement that should increase by only 10 cents. At that price one can barely afford a cup of coffee. Surely, costs will increase, but these should be considered a reasonable price to pay for ensuring democratic participation in decision-making on matters that affect the lives of all EU citizens. Moreover the translation industry provides valuable jobs that would be lost if other languages are scrapped.
The time delay between meetings and the availability of documents is considerable, a single translat...

Currently there are still delays in translation but the right answer to solve this problem is not the introduction of a single language but rather a continuation of a reform that is already on its way and solving many of the time efficiency problems. In 2001 a set of measures was accepted by the Commission in order to make the translation service more effective and last year a whole general directorate responsible for translation was reorganized. These and other similar measures are expected to increase productivity by 40% by the year 2006. Advances in computer-aided translation will also allow preliminary draft translations to be produced swiftly and further reduce delays.
There are several practical problems with multiple languages that are an everyday reality in the EU....

While there may be considerable practical problems with current language policy, introduction of a single language poses an even greater one. Which language to choose? Should it be English, already the most commonly used in communication with member states and third parties? Perhaps instead French, which has the upper hand for purposes of internal communication? Or German, which has the most native speakers in the EU? And these questions only raise practical issues, while the most important is still the fact that language is an extremely politically sensitive issue and countries are strongly against elevating one language to a higher position, unless it is their own. Should EU instead choose a neutral language, like Esperanto, and then face a pile of practical problems as there aren’t that many who speak it?
The introduction of one working language does not mean the destruction of other languages as under t...

European identity has always been based on cultural diversity, that has been the pride of Europeans, and a large portion of culture is language. Introduction of one language elevates that language over the others and may be the beginning of the end of that diversity. If for instance English is introduced as a working language, fewer people will have an incentive to learn German, French or Spanish, cuirrently popular choices for a second language in schools. The plan favours one language over the others and that is the end of Europe as we know it.
The findings on actual language use in the institutions suggest that a de facto working language sit...

Translating documents is crucial when documents take legal effect in member states. Up to 80% of national legislation involves implementing decisions that have already been agreed on at the EU level. It is vital that citizens retain their right to have legislation produced in a language that they understand and even before this stage, it is essential for potential legislation to be circulated in all official language versions to allow for public comment. What the plan does is gives one language and its native speakers an unfair advantage in their dealings with the EU.
One working language gives the EU one voice when dealing with the rest of the world. It encourages ...

Introducing one language would certainly not bring people together; rather it would probably divide them even more. Moreover, a more important principle of EU is its democracy. Having struggled to tackle the accusations of democratic deficit ever since its existence, the EU would be foolish to be seen to further restrict democracy within the institutions. The problem could prove to be the gravest in the European Parliament where MPs are elected not because of their language skills but to represent their political constituency.
Introducing one working language would save the EU much of the money it now spends on translation se...

Introducing one working language would save the EU much of the money it now spends on translation services. These costs range from paying translators to building new booths and offices and increased office supplies because of newly introduced languages. Eurostat estimates that the cost will rise from roughly 550 million euros to over 800 million euros per year after enlargement. With introduction of one working language most of that money could be relocated to other, more substantive areas.
The time delay between meetings and the availability of documents is considerable, a single translat...

The time delay between meetings and the availability of documents is considerable, a single translator finishes merely around 4-5 pages per day. Because of this and because of the growing volume of work, it normally takes 3 weeks between the arrival of a text at the translation service and its dissemination in all requisite versions. Currently there are around 60 000 pages of untranslated material and the number by some estimates increases by around 3 000 pages per week. The introduction of a working language would reduce delays associated with translation and thus make the work of EU institutions much more effective and timely.
There are several practical problems with multiple languages that are an everyday reality in the EU....

There are several practical problems with multiple languages that are an everyday reality in the EU. Twenty languages give a total of 190 possible combinations and finding a person who speaks both Maltese and Estonian is quite a challenge. To overcome this setback, the parliament uses much more 'relay translation', where a speech is firstly translated into one and then into another language. While in the game of Chinese whispers the mistakes may be fun, EU discussions have much more serious consequences. Also many new countries can’t secure enough suitable candidates for translation jobs. A recent call was looking for 135 new translators for all nine new languages and only 40 and 82 candidates applied for Maltese and Latvian, respectively.
Art is more sophisticated than that.

If artists only cared about pleasuring people, they stand no chance against the nicotine and sex industries. Of course there is nothing wrong about making art simply to be pleasing to the eye, just as there is nothing wrong with making radio-friendly pop music. But art also has to power to expand your view of life and humanity, affect you in ways that make you a larger person (no not as in fat), more complete, more intellectual. This may sound like I am differentiating between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" but it is not that. Every piece of art affects every beholder in ways that they do not comprehend. You do not have to be able to verbally articulate how a piece of art affects you and what it is doing to affect you in that way, in order for it to have affected you. Leave that to art critics. If you enter a modern museum and come out feeling a little befuddled, you have still been affected. Your perspective of life has gained something. The majority of our brain processes are unconscious. So it is not possible to fully comprehend how something has affected you. There are too many variables. But beauty is only one aspect of art, and possibly a superficial one.
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists

If our standard for art involves official certificates and price tags, how do we avoid the corruption that comes together with money and official business affecting whether the art is judged fairly? Such a process can hinder art as much as it can support it. Secondly, Beauty is a subjective principle. Order is just as ugly to some as Chaos us to others. The mystifying aspect of beauty is that it cannot be defined as anything except that which appeases the mind. If all art were predictably beautiful, would beauty continue to be the most sought after experience in art/life?