BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As IMF debt relief has been perceived to be fairly controversial, particularly given the economic an...

As IMF debt relief has been perceived to be fairly controversial, particularly given the economic and political reforms required in return, the United Nations would be the preferred institution to manage debt relief. The UN has expertise in coping with disaster areas and in reconstruction, as well as in humanitarian relief - all lacking in the IMF and World Bank with their focus on long-term financial and economic development. This means the UN is best placed to determine whether relief is appropriate in a particular situation. The UN is also a fairer overseer of post-disaster debt relief, as it is not itself a creditor and so can be more objective in its decision-making.
Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies...

Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause, invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad, the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff.
Mercenaries are an essential means of bolstering regimes without their own national forces. Whilst ...

Mercenaries are an essential means of bolstering regimes without their own national forces. Whilst over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to rely on their own armies, there remain a large number of weaker states unable to monopolise the use of force. Where no trained army exists mercenaries provide the only way to prevent violent opponents toppling administrations. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states” mercenaries have a “legitimate role”. Executive Outcomes (EO) saved thousands of lives in Sierra Leone by protecting the regime against the murderous rebels of the Revolutionary United Front. Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup.
Mercenaries currently lack the protection of the law, rendering them highly vulnerable. PMCs are st...

Mercenaries currently lack the protection of the law, rendering them highly vulnerable. PMCs are still not allowed to use heavy weaponry, such as bazookas, and cannot rely on help from the military. Unless they are given recognition and protection there is a danger they could pull out of the most dangerous areas, seriously compromising their employers who may well feel unable to continue without their protection. For example, Halliburton could cripple US forces if it withdrew its support infrastructure in Iraq.
Mercenaries or Private Military Contractors (PMCs) are a flexible and efficient tool with which to f...

Hiring mercenaries may save money but the practice creates huge problems of accountability. Mercenaries are not bound by the same rules and standards of conduct as conventional troops. When problems arise it is often unclear whether army representatives or PMCs should be held responsible, leaving a black hole of accountability. Moreover, the lack of regulation means that there is no means to ensure mercenaries breaking laws are disciplined. Currently most mercenaries can operate outside martial law with relative freedom. Some of the worst offences at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were committed by “privatised interrogators” who are yet to be punished.
Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does n...

There is no guarantee of the quality of contracted soldiers. Whereas the soldiers in national armies usually receive years of intensive military training and undergo various assessments, anyone can work for a PMC. The desire to increase competitiveness has resulted in PMCs driving down costs by recruiting cheaper, less experienced staff ill-suited for warfare. Even if the mercenaries are former soldiers from national armies, these veterans may have been kicked out for a reason. This problem cannot be solved by regulation, as it is unlikely to extend as far as requiring standardised training.
Private Military Contractors and the mercenaries they employ are well trained and responsible. In f...

This new responsible image is not entirely justified. Executive Outcomes may have had some success but white South African ex-secret policemen predominantly staff the organisation. One of EO’s chiefs was Eeben Barlow, a former officer in the 32nd Battalion - an assassination squad that operated under Apartheid. Similarly, the alleged involvement of Simon Mann, founder of PMCs EO and Sandline International, in a recent plot to oust President Obiang in Equatorial Guinea shows that even mercenary organisations considered legitimate by the British Government remain staffed by corrupt opportunists. It is highly morally questionable whether organisations with such a profound disrespect for the sovereignty of other nation states should be involved with the training of our armed forces, let alone fighting alongside them.
Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies...

Whilst mercenaries appear to be less disliked than American troops in Iraq, in parts of Africa their activities have increased tension. The reputation of a national government is often stained by the activities of hired mercenary groups. The involvement in national military operations of white supremacist adventurers and discredited individuals like Simon Mann is used by men such as Mugabe to challenge the legitimacy of British policy in Africa.
Mercenaries are an essential means of bolstering regimes without their own national forces. Whilst ...

The use of mercenaries is counterproductive for unstable states. By relying on hired mercenaries weak states encourage private competition rather than reinforcing their own nascent armies. The emergence of powerful local, as well as international, mercenary organisations frustrates the ultimate goal of securing a state monopoly over the use of force. There are many cases where mercenaries have remained in a region long after their official contract ended in an attempt to exploit regional instability in order to further a particular ideological cause or reap financial reward. Colonel Bob Denard fought vaguely “against Communism” in Africa and attempted to overthrow the government of the Comoros Islands off Madagascar on four separate occasions. Similarly, Colonel “Mad” Mike Hoare tried to topple the government of the Seychelles in 1981, arriving with 43 mercenaries disguised as rugby playing members of a beer-tasting club named The Ancient Order of Froth Blowers.
Mercenaries currently lack the protection of the law, rendering them highly vulnerable. PMCs are st...

The possibility of mercenaries pulling out will always remain a risk. PMCs are not fighting for their own country so they can never be threatened with a charge of desertion. As such, encouraging greater reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That leaves those without influence or money high and dry.
Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does n...

Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used. Military commanders can economise by reducing the size of standing armies and outsourcing roles to mercenaries as required. For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in the 1991 Gulf War. This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed to the development of arms races.
Private Military Contractors and the mercenaries they employ are well trained and responsible. In f...

Private Military Contractors and the mercenaries they employ are well trained and responsible. In fact, as mercenaries operate on short-term contracts there exists a strong incentive to perform effectively and carefully to ensure they are hired again. Most mercenary organisations recruit ex-soldiers with combat experience and ex-policemen trained in bodyguarding. In 2004 more SAS soldiers worked privately in Iraq than served in the army. Moreover, governments increasingly recognise the quality of mercenaries. An American PMC - Military Professional Resources Inc - trains the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on behalf of the US Government. The British Ministry of Defence now allows soldiers yearlong sabbaticals to work as mercenaries in the hope they will return having made their fortunes. This official recognition suggests that mercenaries have shed their “dogs of war” image. They are no longer disreputable maverick figures operating in failed states but highly trained professionals endorsed by national governments.
There is a cost to pride

If people were asked to pay a voluntary fee by a person in a uniform, shame would make them pull something out of their pockets. The well dressed would feel compelled to make a donation to maintain their apparent social status. On the other hand, people who really could afford to give nothing would feel no shame in stating that they were not willing to pay; students are a perfect example of this. This is a win win situation as people would pay whatever price they placed on their shame. Obviously there is no shame in not paying when you cannot afford to, but there is plenty of shame in not paying when you are well able to.
The poor were not encouraged to visit museums after they were made free

When Labour scrapped the admission charges, the idea was to stop museums being middle class enclaves. They wanted poorer families to attend museums more frequently, and they believed it was best to scrap the admission charge. However, statistics have shown that whilst there has been an 87% increase in attendees, there has only been a 2% increase in the proportion of attendees who were from the poorest half of society. [[Richard Morrison, The Times, 22 September 2009]] This means that it is in fact the middle classes, who can afford the fees, who have benefitted from free admission. Surely, to stop these people easily capitalizing on the museums generosity, a more aggressive sales route to get people to pay the voluntary donation would be well placed.
Public funds showing bias towards certain art forms

By making tax payer contributions fund galleries and museums in order to keep them open for free, Government is showing an inherent bias towards certain art forms and information. It does not fund theatres or music concerts, only galleries and museums. This is inflicting the public with the view that visual history and arts are more valuable than those that incorporate sound and other modes of expression. All art forms should be given the same amount of funding to prevent this bias. Therefore, aggressive fundraising for museums at their front entrance would alleviate this apparent bias and would lessen the amount of public funds used to keep these buildings open.
Education should be free

Education is not free in the real world, face it. Even if state schools provide no fee for the parents and students, someone has the pay for the staff, for the equipment, for the maintenance, there are countless costs. Nothing in life is completely free! Everyone knows that. Besides, museums are much more than an educative visit. They provide an interactive experience as well, just look at modern museums such as the Science Museum in London, which everyone thoroughly enjoys. I would also like to point out that the opposition has failed to detect the difference between 'encourage' and 'harass'. Encourage does not suggest a violent or forced nature.
Education should be free

Surely the greatest thing about Britain is it’s meritocratic standpoint on education. Everyone should enjoy education, regardless of their wealth. Museums and galleries are a source of knowledge for people who cannot afford books and the like. Even schools, whilst they may be free, the revision guides that aid people in their studies cost money. If we take away our free museums and start harassing people to make a ‘voluntary’ donation it will be yet another blow to Britain’s meritocracy.
You cannot put a price on unbiased information

How can a museum be guaranteed to be unbiased? Their choice of what to display, and the information they write about it next to the exhibits, is not going to be free of ulterior motive. For instance, they may be given a large donation by someone who wants to exhibit a certain thing, or show the exhibits that bring in the most money, or not show a certain type of art or bring up a certain period of history at a time when it would be politically controversial - or show it deliberately to cause controversy.
You cannot put a price on unbiased information

Museums are buildings that house unbiased information which you cannot find in the media. Television, books and the internet, whilst can be found in free libraries, are not unbiased. In fact these forms of information can be quite detrimental to a person’s learning if this is their only source of information. Museums and galleries provide unbiased information. They contain fact and aesthetic truths. People can see with their own eyes instead of relying on what a commentator has pronounced on the subject. This should remain free, and we should not risk people abstaining from this form of education due to a pressure exerted upon them to make a ‘voluntary’ donation.
People are wiling to pay, but do not

Compulsory admission charges were dropped by most British national museums in 2001. Since then, collection boxes have been placed asking people to make a voluntary donation. This is relatively passive and people will often walk by unthinkingly. However, when they have to pay for a special exhibit, they are more than happy to pay the compulsory charge. Museums are losing money by allowing people in for free when they would actually readily pay the money if asked more proficiently. These people would pay if the asking for a voluntary fee was more apparent, it is for this reason that a more intrusive voluntary charge is the way forward.
People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that...

People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:\ 'Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family.'\ and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed.\
It is a fact of life that sometimes parents are disappointed with the gender of their children. Thi...

It is a fact of life that sometimes parents are disappointed with the gender of their children. This is true, for example, when they already have six sons but want a daughter. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family’s dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved.\ Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn’t it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights.\
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can he...

Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations.\ If a state’s population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, do not, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the 'one-child' policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, e.g the paying of dowries may change, women will achieve higher status.
Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child’s interests ...

Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child’s interests that they don’t have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to ‘fall back on.’ These range in nature from baldness and color blindness to muscular dystrophy and hemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system.\ Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a ‘sperm-sifting’ machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 200 babies have been born using the technology without problems.\
People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that...

Freedom of choice is a good principle, but harm is done to others by the practice of sex selection and so it should not be allowed. Apart from the danger that serious gender imbalances will result (covered in point 3 below), making some sort of sexual selection legal and acceptable will reinforce and legitimise gender stereotypes. In practice this will inevitably mean more oppression of women, already seen as less valuable than men in many cultures. Nor is sex selection supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; its writers did not imagine recent developments but did include rights for equal treatment and status for women, which allowing gender selection would undermine.
It is a fact of life that sometimes parents are disappointed with the gender of their children. Thi...

Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. This is an extension of the consumer society. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a 'gay gene' is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people will demand more and more ability to change their kids, and be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want…
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can he...

This argument veils the likely result of the policy: reinforcement of already unhealthy cultural practices. Selective abortion has meant that gender imbalance in China and India is already very, very high – 1.3 boys to each girl in some regions – demonstrating the likely result of such policies in some countries. Even in western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in some communities. These imbalances are \ socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to find a partner; in China this is already linked to a rise in sexual violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution.
Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child’s interests ...

Medical benefits are outweighed by medical costs. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate. Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a 92% accuracy rate if a girl is desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy falls to 72% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males. Thus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned.
In many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or ab...

In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. In any case, the cost of these new methods is so high, and likely to remain so, that the proposition argument is irrelevant - the use of ultrasound scanning leading to selective abortion is so much cheaper that this great evil will not be reduced. Instead, these new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer, e.g a boy rather than a girl.
His is guilty of illegal vigilante justice

Who is to say that what is illegal is also unjust? Surely that depends on who made the law and their personal beliefs? If we look at different countries, we can see that different people have a different view on what is and is not just. Given that Gotham City has a corrupt Government [[http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-356466-gotham-city.html]], breaking the laws there may be illegal, but it would not be unjust. Therefore it would be an act of immorality to uphold unjust laws and arrest someone for just evasions of that corrupt and unjust law.