BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism cannot protect human rights because it seeks the good of ...

Capitalism may use the language of human rights, but it only really respects the right of the weak to starve in the gutter, and the right of the strong to keep them there. Socialism understands rights more widely and fully, and provides for the right to work, the right to an education, and to health care free at the point of use. It cannot be right for a few individuals to block the progress of all towards these great goals.
The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including l...

The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods) gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs. Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future. The lack of private property rights in much of Africa makes such borrowing and investment impossible, and is one reason for the continent's lack of economic growth.
Only help those who ask for it and that too at your discretion

Suppose someone 'needs' to have sex and comes up to you and asks you to do it. It is not your moral obligation to help, okay. Kids today! Just because someone has asked you do something or if someone needs something, is not obligation to go ahead and help them. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99JgYrgzco&feature=related]] If you want to help people and they want your help then by all means do so, but otherwise there's no 'obligation' per se. Free will, exercise it. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99JgYrgzco&feature=related]]
But individuals are people in need

Hedonism, humanism and hatred are all essential parts of a healthy human psyche. There will be times that you won't get put of bed because you don't want to. There will be times when you will feel the urge to kill don't act on it, there will be times that your heart will be broken and you will break other people's hearts. There is no way around creating needs, denying needs and so on, as such you are not obligated to doing anything. You don't owe the world or the children or humanity anything. But since we all also have the desire to help, give and be liked (as Hobbes would put it, even selfless acts are selfish) we should but there still should not be an obligation, as such. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNFiffOKic]]
empathy

That aruguement makes a separation between obligations and understanding. Essentially, if one understands another and their pain, a moral obligation is thus created. This means that it is not a moral obligation that we have to help peole, but a problem of understanding. Some could then create a meaning or create an understanding that compels them to assist another. The logic then is flawed because it leaves understanding up to the individual as well as what assistence they are to act upon to fix what they understand. If that is the case, the overal goal would then never be accomplished. It thus places the power to define all relavent terms into each and every individual. This is counter productive because this would cause more harm then good. The reason for not having a moral obligation to assist a person in need would be because one can never truly understand whether or not the need is ralavent or if the assistence is even fruitful. I then ask what makes up a moral obligation?
Only help those who ask for it and that too at your discretion

A way to assist the person in need of sex would then be to change what it is they need. You are not obligated to have sex with them, you are however obligated to assist them in not having to have sex in the first place. This essentialy means we perscribe ourselves to knowing the best way to help a need. The way to do this would be to abide by a legitamite government which operates under the notion orf morals. It is throught these morals that we obtain an understanding of justice. Justice is thus assisting those in need. The foundation for justice is morals. Anyone living under a legitamite government not only has a moral obligation to assist a person in need, but continuosly practice this. The citation of 'Free will' was only understood because of a moral foundation. To exercise that right would then obligate you to abide by the laws created by the government. By obeying those laws you assist others by creating a society that minimized pain and suffering as well as maximized understanding.
Trade provides developing countries with an important basis for their own improvement. To gear up t...

The opportunities for trade are severely limited because of barriers imposed by the international system. The arguments made by pro-trade proponents are often couched in the rhetoric of market economics. Yet the international trade arena represents anything but a free market. Instead, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, regulations and other restrictions operate to disadvantage some countries. Because of their weaker bargaining and economic power, it is typically developing not developed countries that are on the losing end of this equation. The agricultural protectionism of the EU and USA, in particular, means that developing countries are unable to compete fairly.
Aid money is often mispent, even when handled honestly. By imposing solutions from outside, it favo...

Exposing fragile developing economies to free trade is very risky. There is a short term danger that a flood of cheap (because of developed world subsidies) imports will wreck local industries who are unable to compete fairly. In the longer term economies may become dangerously dependent upon 'cash crops' or other commodities produced solely for export (e.g. rubber, coffee, cocoa, copper, zinc), rather than becoming self-sufficient. Such economies are very vulnerable to big swings on the international commodity markets, and can quickly be wrecked by changes in supply and demand.
People naturally want to trade with each other, seeking to turn their particular resources or skills...

Trade does not exist in a vacuum. It needs a wider infrastructure to support it, e.g. roads, railways, ports, education to produce capable civil servants to administer trading rules, etc. Without foreign aid, developing countries are not able to develop this kind of support, and so cannot participate effectively in international trade. Aid is not always in the form of money - it may also be given through expert advisors who help countries prepare for the challenges of globalisation.
Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation. The other partner in a trading relations...

Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation. The other partner in a trading relationship is likely to represent an ongoing market for goods or services. So when a developing country has the capacity to engage in trade with another country, there is a strong likelihood that that trade will blossom into an ongoing trading partnership. This will allow a firm basis for a flow of cash or goods into the developing country, largely independently of whether the developed country is doing well or badly economically at a given moment. This can be contrasted to the flow of aid. It tends to be less predictable, both because it is manipulated for political reasons and also because it can be quite ephemeral and so, if the developed country goes through a bad economic time, the aid budget makes an easy target for a reduction in spending.
Trade allows developing countries to retain their dignity. Aid is often seen as quite a patronising...

Trade allows developing countries to retain their dignity. Aid is often seen as quite a patronising concept, no matter how necessary it may be argued to be. It is, like most forms of charity, one party acknowledging its own superiority and aiding the other party not on merit but out of a sense of wanting to help. This can be deeply embarrassing for the receiving country and for its people; indeed this is often cited as one of the reasons why African countries are reluctant to take a full part in international affairs – partly because they feel that their silence or support has been “bought” with aid money. A trading relationship would allow them to be much more equal partners in the international community, and so gain the benefits of inward investment and payment for trade without many of the negative aspects associated with an aid programme.
Trade allows a fair impression of the international order to be created. One of the problems of the...

Trade allows a fair impression of the international order to be created. One of the problems of the current aid system is said to be that it creates an impression amongst receiving countries and their people that the west is a wealthy, free-handed donor which provides what seem like huge sums of money by local standards. The impression can also be that this is given without too much concern about corruption or indeed without moral judgement, since many of the people who administer aid may be seen as morally ambiguous collaborators within authoritarian regimes. This influences developing world expectations of the first world. As well as leading to a sense that there is some sort of right to aid, it can also distort values of openness, self-help and honesty. It encourages many people in recipient countries to consider migrating to the source of this wealth, since they assume that it must be a rich place where all can prosper. When the reality turns out differently, this can cause problems on all sides.
Trade provides developing countries with an important basis for their own improvement. To gear up t...

Trade provides developing countries with an important basis for their own improvement. To gear up to be successful trading partners, developing countries often need to go through a number of key changes. As well as developing their own economy and their manufacturing or service sectors, they may need to build trade infrastructure in other ways. For example, increased trade would focus their attention on such things as good governance, the benefits of a broadly stable currency and internal security. Although such developments may come about as a facilitator for trade, in the best case scenario they may be seen as structural changes which will have a trickle-down benefit for the broader society in the underdeveloped country.
Aid money is often mispent, even when handled honestly. By imposing solutions from outside, it favo...

Aid money is often mispent, even when handled honestly. By imposing solutions from outside, it favours big projects, 'grand gestures' and centralisation - all of which may be inappropriate, only benefit a small number of people, and suffer from intended consequences. By contrast, the profits of trade trickle down to the whole population, giving people the power to spend additional income as they choose, for example by reinvesting it in worthwhile local industries and enterprises.
People naturally want to trade with each other, seeking to turn their particular resources or skills...

People naturally want to trade with each other, seeking to turn their particular resources or skills to their advantage. All too often trade is limited not because government action is needed, but because the government actually gets in the way with restrictive rules and statist controls. For example, regardless of their terms of trade with developed nations, developing countries could all become more prosperous if they removed the barriers they have erected to trade with each other. Putting the emphasis on trade rather than aid redirects attention from what developed states should or could be doing for the developing world, to what developing countries can and should do for themselves.
Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation. The other partner in a trading relations...

Aid is linked to need not the ability to engage in trade. Trade rewards those who are able and willing to engage in trade. This involves a number of elements – as well as having the rights sorts and quantity of goods and services and being willing to sell at the desired price, a country may need to meet certain other criteria of a purchasing country. For example, that country may make demands in terms of corruption, human rights, political support at the United Nations, or any other of a large number of possible preconditions for a trading partnership. This will suit some countries in the developing world. But for others it will act as a bar to trade. They will therefore not receive the redistribution of wealth that is claimed for the global trading web. In this way, trade can distribute its benefits very unevenly. By contrast, aid can in theory be more evenly distributed and can be targeted against identified need rather than against the ability to compete in a trading marketplace.
Trade allows developing countries to retain their dignity. Aid is often seen as quite a patronising...

Not all countries are able to trade successfully. Some countries lack the ability to trade, for example because they do not have the raw resources or materials in quantities that make their exports viable. In the absence of deep government coffers, they would be the first to fall were other countries to engage in a trade war to keep their exports out. So the basic assumption of the international trade argument – that trade is open equally to all countries – does not reflect the reality of the situation.
Trade allows a fair impression of the international order to be created. One of the problems of the...

Aid allows for money in a given country to be allocated well against need. At the micro- level as well as the macro, trade is an inefficient distributor of resources in a developing country. Under it, most if not all of the benefit of the trade will stay with a small elite of people who are often amongst the richest in the country in the first place. They may then move the money offshore again. Alternatively, if it remains within the developing country, it may well simply be used to buttress their own position in a way which further entrenches their social and economic position. So, the benefits of trade flow to few people and often they are the least needy. Aid, by contrast, may be targeted against specifically identified groups or areas on the basis of need, often being given through local groups, such as churches, mosques, health clinics, etc.
Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for ...

Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite private schools educating only around 7% of children. A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities - white high school graduates are more than 10% likelier to go to college than black ones in the USA. This is because of the opportunities granted to wealthier children, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded.
Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures...

Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. Admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist.
Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo...

Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist. The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term.
Affirmative action is required to redress social imbalance, by raising the aspirations of the disadv...

Affirmative action is required to redress social imbalance, by raising the aspirations of the disadvantaged. By having more students from disadvantaged backgrounds, affirmative action will generate more role models for the poor and ethnic minorities. This is because university graduates have more access to top professions, and are more likely to enter politics, law, or become the heads of major corporations. As a consequence, the aspirations of disadvantaged youths will change – it will become more realistic for them to see themselves in public life, and will thus have a better incentive to work hard at school. Not only is this good for their own development, but it will also help wider society by tackling social problems such as petty crime and truancy. Moreover, by having more politicians and businesspeople from humbler backgrounds, there is a chance that the political and economic structure of society will be changed to further assist the less well-off, for example by expanding welfare systems and ensuring greater equality of opportunities, or through different hiring practices.
There is a benefit to students of all backgrounds from a policy of affirmative action in university ...

There is a benefit to students of all backgrounds from a policy of affirmative action in university admissions. College is not just about attending lectures and taking exams, it is also about the development of character and the broadening of the mind. If a university is overwhelmingly white and privileged, students are not exposed to different cultures, viewpoints and social experiences. By ensuring a diverse social mix on campus, universities strengthen the educational experience they provide.
Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for ...

Positive discrimination is unfair on talented students who lose their places, and on talented students from the disadvantaged group. The whole point of affirmative action is to promote a less able applicant ahead of a more able one, measured by their test scores. It undermines the fairness of the system if reasonable objective measures of a person’s ability, such as exam performance and aptitude testing, are overlooked. Under a system of positive discrimination, able students from the majority group or who went to private school are required to achieve more than others to get the same reward. Furthermore, positive discrimination is bad for the talented students from the target group who would get into university even without affirmative action: the policy will undermine their achievement, making their peers (and even them) believe that they only got to where they were because of different standards. It would create a two-tiered university system, in which the achievements of one group were elevated above the achievements of another.
Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures...

There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own self-interest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable) by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination, subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow students resentful of members of the university perceived to have been given a helping hand.
Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo...

Positive discrimination will increase negative perceptions of university. Far from changing attitudes about campus life among disadvantaged groups, positive discrimination is likely to be seen as patronising, and belittling of the achievements of ethnic minorities and the working class. By making the statement that disadvantaged groups are so far behind the rest that they need discrimination in their favour and quotas, universities will alienate themselves from the group they are seeking to help, and will come over as elitist. Survey evidence suggests that affirmative action is usually opposed by the target group, affirming the view that people wish to achieve things for themselves, without being given a ‘leg-up’ by the state. Moreover, positive discrimination devalues the achievements of those who would have been accepted into university even without the assistance, and these people are likely to be deterred from applying.
Affirmative action is required to redress social imbalance, by raising the aspirations of the disadv...

Beneficiaries of positive discrimination won’t be good role models. A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model. Under this policy, however, there is a real danger that the government favours some minority groups over others, thereby inflaming social tensions. For example, positive discrimination in California has benefited one minority group, African-Americans, at the expense of another, Asian-Americans.