BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation

Right now, there are large barriers to entry for individuals and small companies trying to enter any market. Economies of scale make it hard for them to compete with large manufacturers, and they are additionally bound to slow and inefficient quality regulations. This severely limits any kind of innovation. The collective possession of 3D printers would facilitate creation. Anybody could have an idea and implement it into a solid product, which is cheap to produce in your own home without economies of scale. There are already examples all over the world of people creating innovating prototypes and attracting investors16. 3D printing therefore means that anyone can set up in manufacturing without large start-up costs. This means that the flow of ideas in society and the discussion that accompanies it – such as people posting blueprints on blogs and forums and improving each other’s products – would develop infinitely faster than when it is limited to large manufacturers.17 [16] Palermo, Elizabeth. “10 Amazing 3D-Printing Startups”, Business News Daily. 18 June 2013.http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4646-3d-printing-companies.html [17] Wainwright, Oliver. “Is DIY design more than a passing fad?”, Architecture and Design Blog, The Guardian. 24 July 2013.http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/jul/24/design-museum-diy-3d-printing
3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society

Industrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies. [20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013. http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/31/study-at-home-3-d-printing-could-save-consumers-thousands/ [21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries. http://www.thingiverse.com/
Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products

This harm, realistically, is minimal. Those who want to buy guns would still buy them illegally without 3D printers. Guns can be cheap in the black market since they can be mass produced, and to print a gun one first has to purchase a printer, the materials and often also the blueprints. This is similarly the case for other illegal substances. The risk that things can be used for harmful purposes is not a sufficient reason, because those who want to harm themselves or others have the means to do so already. That is why the Madrid bombers were able to develop their own bombs from the internet before 3D printers had been developed: where there is a will, there will always be a way, and it is the will and not the way that it is ever useful to tackle.
Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies

This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world. Even in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12. [10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012.www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones [11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14149615 [12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011. http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr10(1)11/5.pdf
Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming

The difference is minimal between only companies having 3D printers and extending them to households. Printer owners would, for example, still have to purchase and transport printing materials. Many printers still involve large levels of waste19, and these are probably the lower quality printers that individual consumers are more likely to afford. Furthermore, household printing can actually harm the environment by provoking people to consume more than they would if price and convenience were deterrents. Industrial printing on its own can make a significant difference in terms of eco-friendly production: this should not be compromised by dropping all limits on production. [19] Faludi, Jeremy. “Is 3D printing an environmental win?”, GreenBiz. 19 July 2013. http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/07/19/3d-printing-environmental-win
The state should refrain from imposing bans

The restrictions on what the state can ban are only valid inasmuch as they protect fundamental right. The supposed right to 3D printers is not fundamental, but is derived from a right to own good things, if they are available. If the state can provide an alternative that yields similar benefits it does not actually infringe any fundamental right by banning their domestic use. For example, industrial 3D printed manufacturing also provides cheap and innovative products. On the other hand, the potential harms of domestic printers are exponential, and we do not have a right to anything that causes harm to society. The state therefore has a mandate to ban 3D printers in households.
Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products

As the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5 This is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6. Similarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety. [5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/ [6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006. http://www.spiegel.de/international/al-qaida-s-online-university-jihad-101-for-would-be-terrorists-a-432133.html
Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies

All nations to develop economically depend on the importation of capital. In most cases, this takes the shape of labour-intense manufacturing. In fact, scarcely any countries have developed without transitioning through having a large manufacturing sector.8 It takes time for these countries to develop the capital and infrastructure to enter higher barrier to entry markets, such as the service sector. Transitioning without of manufacturing is therefore not an option for the majority of developing nations, and the exceptions that have succeeded in creating economic growth without large scale manufacturing, such as India and Sri Lanka, relied on spectacular luck.9 As a result, many developing nations depend on exporting cheap products to the developed world, where consumption is the highest. If demand for the goods they produce is satisfied in the developed world, such countries will be unable to export. Because of the labour intensiveness of the manufacturing this will affect a large number of people. Short term drops in growth are particularly harmful in the developing world, where social security is too underdeveloped to cushion their effect. People who work long hours for minimal wages do so because unemployment is not an option. Were these factories to have to close suddenly, the social consequences would be devastating. 3D printers provoke this to happen by satisfying all demand for cheap products. When individuals in Western liberal democracies can get access to cheaper products from their own home, developing nations will be unable to compete, and their exports fall substantially. 3D printers should remain at the industry level, where companies are more likely to rationally prefer importing cheap products over the extra costs of using 3D printers, such as electricity, and are likely to continue trade with the Third World. [8] “Breaking In and Moving Up: New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle Income Countries”, Industrial Development Report, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2009.http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/IDR/2009/IDR_2009_print.PDF [9] “The Service Elevator”, The Economist. 19 May 2011.http://www.economist.com/node/18712351
Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom

Individuals are the most fit to decide for themselves what they need and what they want to be happy. When corporations attempt to match demand they do so imperfectly because they have to cater to large numbers of people. Letting people create and customise whatever they want gives them, quite literally, an infinite selection to choose from. This maximises freedom for the consumer and leads to a better quality of life: most of your needs can be met exactly as you want them, without even having to leave your home.
Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming

The more is produced by 3D printing, the better: it makes consuming much more environmentally friendly. They involve less transportation costs, no large scale factories, and by involving additive manufacturing, they can use as little as only a tenth of the material that subtractive manufacturing would require.18 When households, and not only companies, have access to 3D printers, companies will no longer have to move products around the world, but can sell electronic blueprints instead. Furthermore, things are only actually produced after they have been purchased, reducing waste even more. [18] “Print me a Stradivarius”, The Economist. 10 February 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18114327
3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.
The state should refrain from imposing bans

In Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others. Therefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one.
Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws

If you purchase a poor quality product, you are the one to blame: this is already the case now if one chooses to buy a cheaper product from a less reliable source. Under a 3D printer market you are still likely to be purchasing most of your products from reliable brands with an incentive to keep producing quality products as they want you to return and buy more of their products. If you choose not to, you are aware of the risk you take, and can easily inform yourself of the risks on peer review websites and forums before making your choice.
Solid piracy will become as problematic as virtual piracy

For the people for whom the illegality of piracy is not a deterrent, the illegality of owning a domestic 3D printer will not be an obstacle either. Banning 3D printers may only result in large scale 3D printer manufacturing piracy. Under this model, on the other hand, even if there is a slight infringement on intellectual property, a tax can be imposed on the private ownership on 3D printers that is used for rewarding innovation.15 [15] See “This house would abolish intellectual property rights”, Debatabase.http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law/house-would-abolish-intellectual-property-rights
Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation

Household 3D printers will, in practice, hamper innovation both from companies and individuals. Firstly, individuals will still be faced with the large barrier to entry of lacking sufficient expertise to produce much of what they want. Any “flow of ideas” that may arise will only be composed of low-quality designs. Secondly, individuals will have less incentive to innovate when the market is out of control and free designs are floating all over the internet. Any attempt at differentiation is impossible. Thirdly, and more importantly, the problems with copyright law once 3D printers are domestic will deter both companies and individuals from innovating. Revolutionary products require effort and knowledge to design: they will not be created without a profit incentive.
3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society

A post-scarcity society is unrealistic. 3D printers still come with large costs, in terms of machinery, materials and blueprints. Those that can afford the more complex printers and the higher quality materials will benefit much more than others. While these costs exist, and there is no near future in which they do not, scarcity will continue to be a problem. This is especially the case since the need for expertise remains. The vast majority of products of reasonable quality will still be produced by corporations with a profit incentive, and available only to those who can afford them.
3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism

While 3D printing may revolutionise professional manufacturing and lead to less waste, in the household it promotes mindless consumerism. By producing anything desired cheaply and more accessibly, without even having to leave your house, they encourage people consume much more than they otherwise would. This happens because individual consumers tend not to be concerned about the sustainability implications of every purchase: they will do so even less when 3D printers allow instant gratification. On one hand, it can make people more dependent on material possessions, which makes it harder for them to attain more sustainable forms of happiness. Additionally, this eventually leads to more waste and overproduction, reversing all the potential benefits of industrial 3D printing.
A presidential position enable the democratic selection of a head-of-state

The alternative to the monarch is obvious. Many states around the world have Presidential systems, either like the United States where the President fulfils both the role of the Head of State and the Head of Government combining the two roles. Or as in Italy or Germany where there is both a head of state (usually president) and a head of government (usually Prime Minister, although Germany’s is Chancellor) where the head of state is respected but is mostly a ceremonial role. Finally there may be both a head of state and head of government where both are powerful as in France. Therefore the head of state can still be in whatever role the state requires. Most importantly in all these cases the head of state is elected rather than simply gaining the position on account of birth.
The head of state should be a position that is separate and distinct from politics

Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. For example in the United States there has been a campaign against President Barak Obama with the most extreme views in the ‘birther’ movement who deny he was even born in the United States. It would be impossible for him to unite the nation while one in four Americans think their President was not born in the USA.[1]  In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France). [1] Condon, Stephanie, ‘Poll: One in four Americans think Obama was not born in the U.S.’, CBS News, 21 April 2011, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056061-503544.html (accessed 9/9/11)
Separating the positions of the head-of-state and prime minister of the government makes great practical sense

The Monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad that would be necessary whether there was a monarch or not, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing. Since The Queen's first official overseas visit to South Africa in 1947, overseas visits have become one of her most important duties. The Queen pays two outward State visits each year, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh. She also regularly tours her other realms and member countries of the Commonwealth, so far the Queen has paid over 60 State visits to foreign governments. As well as overseas state visits, each year the Queen and other members of the Royal Family pay nearly 3,000 visits throughout the United Kingdom. Official functions often feature prominently in such visits, including opening new buildings, meeting local dignitaries and visiting businesses, schools, hospitals and other public buildings as well as community schemes, military units and charities.[1] [1]The Official website of the British Monarchy, Queen and Royal Visits, available at http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/RoyalVisits/Royalvisits.aspx  (accessed 31/05/2011)
The monarchy is an important preserver of a nation's cultural heritage

The Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. The Monarchy is the oldest institution of government. Queen Elizabeth II is directly descended from King Egbert, who united England under his rule in 829. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty, the Queen's title in Britain is 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'.[1] The Monarchy provides a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Royal traditions such as the changing of the guard are still carried out today. [1]The official magazine for Britain, The Monarchy, available at http://www.britain-magazine.com/categories/monarchy (accessed 31/05/2011).
The monarchy can serve as public role models.

Although above party politics, modern monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, in the U.K. Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion. Charities are an important part of the Royal family's work, About 3,000 organisations list a member of the Royal Family as patron or president. The Queen has over 600 patronages and The Duke of Edinburgh over 700.[1] [1]The official website of the British Monarchy, Charities and patronages, available at http://www.royal.gov.uk/CharitiesandPatronages/Overview.aspx (accessed 31/05/2011)
Monarchies, no matter how vestigal, are undemocratic

While the Monarchy has legal rights, the real powers of European Monarchs are negligible. For example, while the Monarch legally has the power to dissolve parliament, no Monarch has done this since William IV in 1834. Technically the Monarchy also has the power to veto any legislation that comes through Parliament, however, this power has not been exercised since Queen Anne in 1708[1]. To the point of the concept of the Monarchy, Canadian historian Jacques Monet has suggested that ''in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world -- the accident of birth -- Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person."[2] [1]Republic Organisation UK available at http://www.republic.org.uk (accessed 31/05/2011) [2]Canadian Monarchist Online http://pages.interlog.com/~rakhshan/pmain.html (accessed 31/05/2011)