BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Second home owners create environments without coherence that are overpopulated in high season (wint...

The coherence implied in tight knit rural communities is not the only form of social coherence that can exist. In fact, cities, particularly so called global cities, have proven that there are many ways in which this coherence can evolve and that groups of people with very different cultures always find creative means to coexist. That rural areas have often been protected from having to adjust to the modern world, does not mean that it is possible to maintain this forever. One need not be afraid of different forms of coherence, for even seasonal towns maintain their own forms of social solidarities and create a certain sense of community. In any case, these problems are common to all tourist venues not just to those with many second homes. Second home owners are in fact much more likely than holidaymakers to visit at all times of year, not just in high season. Their presence in a community helps to create year-round work, for example in construction and property maintenance.
Imposing a tax along with regulations on second home ownership would be an efficient way of reducing...

5. It is unlikely that such taxes will be imposed, particularly in the UK, where the debate on this has emerged. The response to Mr Meacher’s suggestion has so far been a pretty firm no. Thus the chances of such legislation passing are very low. Even in the event that such legislation would pass, there is little evidence that the tax and regulations would be efficient and dealing with such complex problems as the destruction of rural communities. The EU has shown little desire to deal with this issue and the likelihood of the new negotiation of the CAP to include new issues is unlikely, given that most EU members are hoping for a slow phase-out of the policy. Given that Britain has been one of the strongest opponents of the CAP, it is highly unlikely that it would recommend its continued existence, even under a new framework.
It is immoral for some people to have an excess of housing while others are homeless. Many poorer f...

Excessive government intervention in the housing market will cause it to collapse, leading to no investment in the new building and an overall increase in homelessness. Controlling what individuals can do with their hard earned money would strike at the roots of a free society, removing people’s incentives to work hard and better their conditions, and so undermining prosperity for all. Migration of people from rural areas to the cities is a very long-term phenomenon, and the lack of sufficient low-cost housing in some countries is a problem just as much of cities as of rural areas. Governments need to address housing policy as a whole - for example, it hugely more difficult to get permission to build new housing in the UK than in the USA - not to target a few second home owners out of simple class envy.
Second home ownership has troubling economic implications for the local communities exposed to it, a...

Second home ownership has troubling economic implications for the local communities exposed to it, as people find it more and more difficult to afford housing within their own community. With the rise in housing prices, there is also an immediate rise in associated costs and services which often target only the seasonal residents. An additional property tax on second homes would provide local governments with a higher budget to help locals cope with these changes. In addition, stricter regulations could help limit the number of second homes in a particular community thus making the problem more manageable. For example, a proportion of properties available for purchase in rural areas could be reserved for existing local residents only.
Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio...

Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions.
The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt poli...

There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration. Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable, even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal immigrants want to stay in the country.\ Repatriation also runs the risk of putting illegal immigrants at risk of harm when they return to their country of origin. Instead of simply requiring the immigrants to leave, repatriation sends them home. Many are fleeing persecution, human rights abuses, violent crime, war and famine. Sending them home is a violation of their human rights.\ Repatriating illegal immigrants is also inhumane because many illegal immigrants have been in the country for years. Many have started families and will be separated from them if returned home because children born in a country are usually granted citizenship. There have been cases in Canada and the UK where mothers have faced being separated from their children because they were going to be repatriated. \
Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States attract illegal immigrants be...

Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a ‘soft touch’: very few, if any, countries have no problems with illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social, political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual country’s policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the immigration policies of a country. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society.
Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, te...

A repatriation policy will not effectively target this area of illegal immigration because criminal networks will always find ways of smuggling people into a country and evading detection. All a repatriation policy will do is make these gangs more sophisticated when it comes to hiding illegal immigrants.\ Having a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration will also make it harder for those who are trafficked to escape from criminal gangs because if they contact the authorities they will be sent home. This gives the criminals behind people-trafficking more power over their victims and will lead to worse living/working conditions in illegal industries.\
Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. In the USA studies have shown that i...

Many illegal immigrants pay taxes and actually contribute to the economy of a country. Every time an illegal immigrant buys something, they pay the same amount of sales tax or VAT as any other person. In the United Kingdom, illegal immigrants also pay income tax and national insurance if they are working. It is impossible to prove that all illegal immigrants are a drain on the system and so their cost to society cannot be used as a justification for repatriation policies.
Illegal immigrants undercut the labour market by accepting low wages and working under illegal condi...

The illegal workforce is a necessary part of the economy because lawful residents do not want jobs such as casual labour, agricultural or domestic jobs. Illegal immigrants often provide vital services that would otherwise be too expensive or hard to find if regular workers were employed e.g. cleaning, childcare and manual labour. Goods would become too expensive to produce if, for example, parts of the agriculture industry had to employ lawful residents/migrants.
Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migratio...

Governments need to rethink migration policies as a whole and make an attempt to communicate the benefits of immigration to their citizens. There need to be more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally, allowing them to leave and re-enter the country as they wish. This will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country for life, as at present they know they are unlikely to be allowed back in should they ever leave.
The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt poli...

The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt policies of repatriation. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law and are harming the interests of citizens and legal migrants. The rules on immigration need to come with tough sanctions to ensure that they are not exploited or broken in the future. The only way to have an effective policy against illegal immigration is to make it difficult for illegal immigrants to get into and remain in the country. Repatriation is necessary because it targets successful illegal immigrants and ensures a comprehensive immigration policy that aims to reduce illegal immigration.
Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States attract illegal immigrants be...

Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States attract illegal immigrants because they are seen as a ‘soft’ target with poor border controls and the opportunity for illegal immigrants to remain in the country without detection. Repatriation sends a message to potential illegal migrants that their presence in the country will not be tolerated and that any attempt to stay in the country illegally will be unsuccessful.
Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, te...

Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, terrorism and the sex trade. This is both dangerous for those involved in illegal immigration but also increases the criminal activity in a country, putting lawful residents at risk. Repatriating illegal immigrants would lead to fewer opportunities for criminal networks to gain entry to the country. The state also has a duty to protect its citizens from the harms associated with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration fuels dangerous industries such as prostitution and the drug trade, repatriating illegal immigrants cuts off a vital source of labour for these industries and could contribute to the eradication of these industries.
Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. In the USA studies have shown that i...

Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. In the USA studies have shown that illegal immigrants are a net cost to the government rather than a net benefit. Illegal immigrants are a drain on healthcare and social services such as policing and education. They take taxpayer’s money away from those who are lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the state. The only way to alleviate these burdens is by repatriating illegal immigrants.
Science gives man the ability to ‘play God’, and to interfere in things that we know nothing about. ...

Talking of ‘playing God’, aside from assuming the existence of a deity that many people in this day and age do not believe in, implies a violation of set boundaries. What boundaries ? Set by whom ? Any attempt to define them runs into problems of definition. In actual fact, the proposition is simply afraid of things it knows nothing about. There is nothing wrong with the principle of scientific advance; the accusation that we are meddling in areas we do not understand is a call for better regulation of scientific enquiry, not its abolition.
Science has greatly increased the capability of men and women to kill each other. Wars which used to...

Science does not kill; man does. Science cannot be blamed for the flaws in human nature, and suffering cannot be attributed to it any more than religion or philosophy, both of which have caused wars. In fact, the example used by the Proposition illustrates how science brings with it accompanying responsibility; Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured that wars such as the Cold War were bloodless events.
Science has greatly increased the capability of men and women to kill each other. Wars which used to...

Science has greatly increased the capability of men and women to kill each other. Wars which used to be fought face to face on the battlefield, with comparatively few casualties, are now fought from miles away in anonymity. Stockpiled nuclear weapons give man the capability of obliterating the entire world ten times over, and at certain points in history, such as the Cuban missile crisis, the world has stood on the brink of destruction.
Science has perverted the fundamental basis of human relations. The word ‘society’ itself comes from...

On the contrary, science has greatly increased the ability of people to communicate. Telephones and email enable people on opposite sides of the world to stay in touch where before they would have had no possible way to do so. The Internet allows people unprecedented access to information – anything from sports scores to debating crib-sheets. And any study of pre-industrial society will show that computer games appear to have taken the place previously held by recreational violence.
Science is despoiling the natural world. Electricity pylons ruin the countryside, acid rain from coa...

Any consideration of the modern world will reveal the fallacy of the proposition’s argument. Modern medicines have more than doubled our life expectancy, and enabled children to be vaccinated against diseases which before hand had ensured a massive rate of infant mortality, whilst the population could not be fed without fertilisers and pesticides to increase yields and machinery to collect them efficiently. Science and technology are essential to modern existence. Like any of mankind’s inventions, it must be treated with care and not abused, but it is ludicrous to condemn it in itself as a menace.
It is true that many cases do involve guilty pleas, but those which are contested are disproportiona...

This is not likely to have a dramatic effect on conviction rates, as the large majority of those who are accused of crimes already plead guilty. The two biggest reasons for dissatisfaction with the justice system are poor investigation work by the police and poor case preparation by the prosecuting authorities, resulting in flawed and collapsed trials. This lack of confidence in turn makes the public less likely to cooperate with investigations. These problems should be addressed instead if higher conviction rates and greater public confidence in the justice system are our objective.
At present in Britain, previous convictions can be disclosed at a trial if the judge rules that the ...

This is not just a tidying-up measure. The British government’s particular proposal to allow the disclosure of previous offences in court is dangerous, as not only convictions, but also acquittals and other past conduct could be raised in court. This means that a jury could be informed that someone had a history of sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried, or even charged with an actual offence. This will be very prejudicial and allow the police to blacken someone’s character without the evidence formal proceedings would require.
At present the justice system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals and against the victims of...

At present the justice system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals and against the victims of crime. This leads to many dangerous offenders being acquitted and let loose on the streets to commit crimes in future. Not surprisingly, the public finds it very frustrating that court rules work against just outcomes. High profile cases illustrate the problems involved, e.g. with jurors being shocked to discover that someone they have just acquitted of violent rape is already serving a prison sentence for a very similar crime. It is time to rebalance justice in favour of victims by allowing previous criminal convictions to be disclosed in court.
It is unfair and illogical not to place all the evidence in a case before the jury. If a defendant ...

It is unfair and illogical not to place all the evidence in a case before the jury. If a defendant has previous convictions then jurors should be told of it and allowed to weigh its relevance accordingly. The whole criminal justice system relies upon trusting the jury to deliberate carefully and without prejudice on the basis of the evidence; yet present practice assumes they cannot be trusted to know everything. As the UK Government’s White Paper says: 'We want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so.'
Jurors are often already tainted by the widespread reporting about cases, despite attempts to censor...

Jurors are often already tainted by the widespread reporting about cases, despite attempts to censor what the press prints and efforts to control what influences the jury are subject to. This creates an unsatisfactory and dangerous situation where ill-founded rumour about defendants’ records and newspaper speculation may skew a trial. It would be much better to bring any previous convictions out into the open (as defence counsels already choose to do in some cases). Mock trials are very limited in their reliability as a research tool as, unlike a real jury, the subjects know that their decision will not have any actual impact upon the life of the 'defendant'.
This measure may well help some defendants to mount a stronger defence, as it would also allow the c...

This measure may well help some defendants to mount a stronger defence, as it would also allow the criminal records of prosecution witnesses to be admitted as evidence. This will allow the jury to weigh the evidence of some witnesses more carefully. The UK Government White Paper argues that at present 'the threat of introducing [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness.'
It is true that many cases do involve guilty pleas, but those which are contested are disproportiona...

It is true that many cases do involve guilty pleas, but those which are contested are disproportionately concentrated among certain types or serious crimes, particularly rape. The conviction rate for rape cases is very low, a fact which leads many victims of rape to avoid reporting the crime to the police, or to refuse to assist a prosecution. Many rape cases do involve men who have a previous record of sexual offending, and the inability of the police and prosecution to refer to this in court contributes greatly to the failure of many rape trials, and the release of many dangerous men back into society.
At present in Britain, previous convictions can be disclosed at a trial if the judge rules that the ...

At present in Britain, previous convictions can be disclosed at a trial if the judge rules that the circumstances of the past and present cases are 'strikingly similar', if the defendant claims falsely to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness. These criteria are drawn from a number of pieces of legislation and legal precedents, and inevitably, different judges interpret these criteria in very different ways, meaning that justice is inconsistent and arbitrary. It would be much better to have a simple ruling to make court procedures clearer and more accessible.
At present the justice system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals and against the victims of...

This proposal greatly weakens the presumption of innocence that is critical to a fair trial. The job of a jury is to decide the case on the evidence available, not on information in the defendant’s past life that has no relevance to the particular circumstances of the alleged crime at trial. Many people who committed crimes in their youth never reoffend, and even if someone is a career criminal, it does not mean that they are guilty for a particular offence.
It is unfair and illogical not to place all the evidence in a case before the jury. If a defendant ...

We do not place absolute trust in juries at present; indeed the British government has been trying unsuccessfully to restrict the right to jury trial for several years, before giving up in the face of determined political and legal opposition. Other proposed legal reforms go in the direction of limiting the kinds of evidence jurors that can hear. For example, the questioning of rape victims about their sexual history will be severely restricted on the grounds that it is highly prejudicial.
Jurors are often already tainted by the widespread reporting about cases, despite attempts to censor...

Research at the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies in 1995 indicated that revealing previous convictions to a 'jury' in mock trials increased the probability that they would convict by 50%. Disclosure of previous sexual offences increased the chances of conviction by even more than this, regardless of the offence being tried. This indicates that jurors (and lay magistrates) are likely to be guided by their prejudices in judging cases, and will not be considering the evidence alone.
This measure may well help some defendants to mount a stronger defence, as it would also allow the c...

This measure gives an incentive to the police to do lazy and unfair investigations. Their best chance of obtaining convictions will be to round up the 'usual suspects' -- previously convicted criminals to whom jurors are unlikely to give a fair hearing. The Bar Council is particularly worried about justice 'when a weak identification case is bolstered by reading out the defendant's record.' This is likely to result in many miscarriages of justice and to mean that many of the guilty are never properly pursued and brought to trial.