BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It makes people culturally ignorant.

The fact is that even if English becomes fully globalised (which it has not yet) other languages will still be used. Though English may be used in business transactions, these people will still go home and speak their mother tongue. If people begin to only communicate in English, a valuable lesson could be lost in manners and respect. Even if there is one common language, it should always be borne in mind how respectful and polite it is to at least attempt to speak the other’s language. In business transactions, the person will have to know their clients language to a greater degree in order to complete this than on a social level. However, with the globalisation on English people will forget this sign of respect and will only speak English. This is a sad day for cultural recognition and mutual respect.
English does not require the learning of new symbols.

English has its own peculiar and highly irregular orthography. For instance, "o" in "box" is pronounced not straightforward [o] but [ɒ] in Britain and [ɑː] in the U.S.; "u" in "bud" is not plain [u] but [ʌ]. It's heavily inclined towards non-isomorphic diphthongs such as "light" [laɪt] and "lure" [lʊə], which defies most other language speakers' common familiarity with straightforward pure vowels. Literal phonemes are irregularly dropped, as in "wednesday" [wɛnzdeɪ] and "leicester" [lɛstə]. "th" varies between [θ] and [ð], and both sounds are less than common among other languages. English also abounds with the kinds of consonant clusters that are completely alien to many languages. For speakers of those Austronesian languages that have no consonant cluster at all, the likes of "sixths" [sɪksθs] prove extremely difficult. The statement that (the orthography and phonology of) English is "very easy to learn" or "easily accessible to the many" cannot be further from the truth when the learners means international. There are many alternatives -- natural or artificial languages -- that do not involve uncommon (non-ASCII) letters/characters/symbols other than English.
English does not require the learning of new symbols.

The English language is one that is very easy to learn. Unlike the most spoken language in the world, Chinese, it does not require most people around the world to learn new numerals. We find other languages also require the learning of new symbols. This is true in German with the eszett (double SS sound but looks like a B) and French with their accents. English as a language does not have these. This means that the language is easily accessible to the many. If we wish to communicate effectively we need all people to be able to communicate in it; even those who have difficulty in learning languages. Therefore having a global language which requires no learning of characters is important.
Mistakes made in the English language do not change meaning

Many languages don't distinguish the sounds English makes significant use of. Chinese makes little difference between the voiced and unvoiced consonants. Samoan has no consonant clusters, let alone a word-ending consonant. To native speakers of such languages, the likes of short closed-syllable English words like "kid" and "kit" are just difficult to differentiate. Isolating languages that do not require the learning of a complex inflection system is probably a preferable kind of international auxiliary language to fusional languages that do require such learning. However, English is not optimally isolating; it still inflects, and in an irregular way even. For instance, while a truly functional isolating language would have a word to periphrasally express past-ness of an event for any predicate, English requires that the verb itself inflect just like in Latin. It doesn't make possible isolating and consistent forms like "go --> [past] go", "see --> [past] see", "love --> [past] love" but fusional and inconsistent forms like "go --> went", "see --> saw", "love --> loved". And this is further complicated by the irregular conjugations for present and past participles such as "going | gone", "seeing | seen", "loving | loved".
Tighter immigration laws and tougher entry measures can be used.

Measures aimed at travellers to the USA affect the innocent as well as the guilty. This is especially true in the case of foreign nationals. Tighter entry controls may keep out foreigners (for example, scientists, tourists, students) whose skills and money could be good for the United States. In any case, many terrorist attacks around the world have been carried out by citizens against their own country, not by foreigners.
We are at war at present and so different rules need to apply from times of peace.

The war on terror is not a war like World War II. The enemy is not a state and it is not clear how victory will be reached. This means any loss of privacy will be open ended and may last for many years. But even in times of war, America’s strength is in our rights and freedoms. It is American individualism and personal freedom that our enemies often hate the most. By changing our society to make us less free we are playing into their hands. A victory at the cost of the liberties that make our society great is not worth having.
Overvaluing the Risk of Terrorism

First of all, the reason that there have been so few terrorist attacks in the last ten years is the direct result of measures such as the Patriot Act. It is true that people tend to over-value the likelihood of a terrorist attack, but I for one would like to keep it that way so that we remain vigilant. National security is a constant project. It is more than preventing individual terrorist attacks, it is knowing what our enemies are doing at all times. And that is something that we don’t value enough.
Beyond National Security

Let’s stop worrying about national security for a moment and worry about personal security. Thanks to the increasing digitization of every aspect of our lives, it is becoming easier and easier for companies and the government to mine our personal data. This digitization of our reality is sending us down a very slippery slope into a world in which every aspect of our being is being monitored by corporations. “But wait,” you might be saying, “corporations can’t use my data without my permission, and I won’t give it to them!” Well, you’re correct in that corporations need your permission to use your data, but what’s terrifying is that you’re actually going to give it to them. As more aspects of our personal lives become connected to the internet, we become more and more easy to spy on. Corporations will learn to take advantage of all this information, and they’ll also come up with ways to make us comply. For example, the John Hancock Company has announced that they will give discounts on health insurance to customers who meet certain requirements based on their FitBit data. Of course, the company says you don’t have to participate, but you want cheap health insurance don’t you? These types of policies will only become more prevalent, and eventually corporations and even the government may require you to plug into their spy networks in exchange for access to services as essential as welfare or applying for a job. First they tell us we need to give up our rights in exchange for national security, next we're giving up our rights for cheaper health insurance.
Surveillance is the secret watching of suspects’ private activities.

Surveillance is the secret watching of suspects’ private activities. In the past this usually involved following people, or going through their trash. These days it is mostly electronic, with the police and intelligence agencies listening into private phone conversations or reading emails (wiretapping). Surveillance can also involve looking at bank account details to see where money comes and goes. All these are vital tools for tracking the actions of terrorists when they are planning attacks. The government cannot stand by and wait until criminal acts are carried out: it must stop attacks before they happen.
Overvaluing the Risk of Terrorism

In many cases, invasive surveillance laws are passed amidst panic, often right after a terrorist attack when citizens are scared and desperate for anything to make them feel secure again. It was in such a climate, just after the September 11 terrorist attacks, that the US government passed the Patriot Act. In these desperate times people rally together, but they are also easily manipulated. It is these moments of crisis that prudence is more important than ever. The hysteria caused by terrorist attacks is largely caused by a cognitive bias rampant in the human race known as the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic causes people to consider something more dangerous or more imminent when they can easily bring it to mind and imagine it. It’s why people are often more afraid of terrorist attacks than cancer even though Americans are over 6,500 times more likely to die from cancer. It is almost always because of these types of exaggerated risks that our governments take away our freedoms in exchange for security. But if we recognize that the risks are over-blown we realize that giving up our rights isn’t worth it.
Tighter security controls at airports and borders will help prevent attacks and loss of life.

Tighter security controls can also be used to target particular ethnic and religious groups in a way that is unfair and biased. This is bad in itself, but it also risks setting such groups against our society and creating more future terrorists. If Osama Bin Laden is saying that America is at war with Islam, picking on Muslims at airports because they have brown skin and Arabic-sounding names only plays into his hands.
Philosophical Foundations of Government

Yes, governments are beholden to protect the natural rights of their citizens, but that is just one of many tasks of governing. Even our friend John Locke would have agreed that a society (represented by a government) is ultimately a social contract, agreed upon by all its members, with the purpose of protecting the constituents’ freedoms as well as the constituents themselves. Without the social contract we are nothing but intelligent animals, writhing in the state of nature. When we sign the social contract (figuratively that is) we give up some of our rights to the government in order that we may be protected, and sometimes that government might have to infringe on our other rights in order to protect us. Our rights do us no good if we’re dead anyway.
Security Theatre

Security theatre is a real problem and one that the security community is aware of and wants to eradicate. In fact, the ‘theatre” problem is prevalent in many areas of government. Look at the dubious effectiveness of standardized testing in education for example. This issue is just evidence that we need to be out there trying different security methods and studying them to determine what works and what doesn’t. The fact that security isn’t perfect isn’t a reason to abandon it. We don’t apply that reasoning to any other aspect of knowledge, so why would we apply it here?
Most rights are not (absolute) unlimited but have to be balanced against other rights.

Most rights are not (absolute) unlimited but have to be balanced against other rights. For example, the right to free speech does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded theatre, because people may be killed in a rush for the exits. In the same way, any right to privacy is by no means absolute, and Americans already allow the government to control some of their private actions. For example, the government can require drivers to wear safety belts. Any intrusions on privacy for the sake of security would be minimal, and the most important rights would still be respected.
Philosophical Foundations of Government

Let’s start with the philosophical fundamentals. Limiting civil liberties and the right to privacy in the name of defending a liberal democratic nation is the ultimate hypocrisy. Modern, western liberal democracies exist to protect the rights of their citizens. The great John Locke, spiritual father of the modern liberal democracies, believed that all people were born with god-given rights, one of which was liberty, and that the purpose of governments was to protect those rights. If that same government is attacking our liberty and our privacy under the guise of keeping us secure, than it is betraying its very essence.
Security Theatre

The largely ineffective TSA is a classic example of what’s known as “security theatre.” Security theatre is a security action that is very visible but not very effective and thus gives people the illusion that they are being protected but doesn’t produce actual results. When it comes to anti-terrorism policy, we are extremely susceptible to security theatre because of the availability heuristic discussed above. Basically, it’s more important that it looks like something is being done to protect us than that something is actually being done to protect us. Because terrorism is an over-blown threat and politicians know it, they can dazzle us with security theatre and gain our admiration even if nothing effective is really being done. Meanwhile this wasted money could have been spent on something useful like healthcare or education. What’s worse is that in this post 9/11 climate of panic, we’ve been taught that privacy invasion is necessary to keep us safe, and so we take it on faith. The violation of our basic human rights has become a grotesque kind of security theatre in itself.
Rights and Obligations – There is a clear similarity between being required to behave in certain way...

Rights and Obligations – There is a clear similarity between being required to behave in certain ways to receive other forms of state assistance (welfare), and making similar active efforts to preserve your health. The right to unemployment welfare payments depends on having to make some effort to seek employment (in most developed countries). You may choose not to seek work, but then it is no longer the duty of the state to subsidise you. It is therefore completely consistent to say such an incentive system should exist with regards to another essential – your health. Indeed, it is probably fairer than the denial of welfare payments, as truly nobody is forced to smoke. By contrast, those pressured by circumstances beyond their control into homelessness, undiagnosed depressions etc. –- may have legitimate reasons for failing to attend job interviews, etc. \ \
Resource Availability and Likely Effectiveness of Treatment – Different countries have different deg...

Resource Availability and Likely Effectiveness of Treatment – Different countries have different degrees of capacity or financial shortfall in their health systems. In either case, smokers contribute disproportionately to this problem. Allowing smokers to take scarce beds or organs needed for transplants -- that could otherwise go to those suffering from genuine misfortunes -- is a social injustice. People suffer massive discomfort and even die whilst on waiting lists for operations. Smokers consume selfishly. \ In the UK it is estimated that up to 9,500 beds are blocked daily by smokers, and that up to eight million doctor consultations are required on their behalf each year. While it is true that smokers often pay a lot of tax for their habit, taxation is necessary as a deterrent. Moreover, the core point again is about free choice. Smokers choose to buy tobacco and pay tax; it is not forced upon them. Tax is an unreliable indicator of worthiness of state help. The rich are disproportionate contributors to healthcare via income tax, but few suggest they ought to be entitled to a better service from the state than anybody else. On the other hand, in no countries are the rich forced to use private healthcare and entirely denied state services under any and all circumstances. We accept that nobody chooses either to be rich but always or suddenly ill, or to be poor but always healthy. But everyone who chooses to smoke -- chooses to smoke.
Operations and treatment are actually less likely even to work when they are provided for smokers. ...

Operations and treatment are actually less likely even to work when they are provided for smokers. First, some operations are less successful where smoking has caused the problem, e.g. heart bypasses. Second, since serious smoking related illnesses often occur in combination, operations are complicated to the point of probable failure. For instance, lung cancer is often coupled with emphysema. Treating both at the same time is massively problematic. Thus treatment -- not to mention research -- resources are being wasted trying to improve the survival rates of people who bring these dual horrors upon themselves.
Furthering Social Inequality? – More deprived socio-economic groups are more likely to smoke. This ...

Furthering Social Inequality? – More deprived socio-economic groups are more likely to smoke. This is probably because the financial deterrent is not large enough. Of all sections of society, the working classes should be the easiest to deter from smoking by economic means, given they have the least disposable income to spend on luxuries. Having to pay for healthcare as well as cigarettes would outweigh any culture of smoking. Further, even if the scale of the working class smoking problem is mostly due to cultural factors, it should be remembered the working classes are also more likely to use free public healthcare generally. First, because their standards of health are on average lower. Second, because the working classes are less likely to be able to afford private care. Therefore, it is they who suffer most from clogged up wards. Tarring all working class people with the same brush, and treating smokers like victims, means – once again – removing an effective reward/incentive system to encourage people not to smoke. Good, hard working people pay for the irresponsibility of smokers; this is unjust. Making good, hard working and poorer people bear the brunt of the problem, is even more unjust.
Practical Issues -- This is primarily a debate about a principle. Practical hurdles are secondary t...

Practical Issues -- This is primarily a debate about a principle. Practical hurdles are secondary to deciding what is it health services should achieve, and how they should achieve it in the first place. That said, there are realistic ways this policy could be carried out.\ Insurance companies already ask lots of health-related questions, often including whether their client is a smoker, when assessing life insurance premiums. In these cases, you are required to give details of your lifestyle by law. Of course, some people do not, however this is to be expected since no law is one hundred percent effective. Sanctions exist to discourage dishonest behaviour. A similar model could be put in place requiring a declaration of smoker status to the health authority. Indeed, many doctors already enquire about their patients’ smoking statuses on an informal basis.\ It is also particularly hard to lie about being a smoker for two reasons. First, other people inevitably see you smoking. This means an abundance of witnesses in the case of a disputate, and thus a disincentive to lie. Second, people require doctors to undertake detailed examinations for treatment purposes, thereby allowing them to see obvious outward signs of smoking: tar deposits, tar in cough, yellowed fingernails, etc.\ Clearly, there is a need to set guidelines for what is practicable and fair with regards to timetable issues and the types of treatment which would remain available to smokers. However, doctors and health services make these kinds of judgements all the time. In the UK, IVF is only provided to couples after extensive vetting of their appropriateness as parents, medically and socially. Likewise, the psychological impact of obesity, cosmetic disfigurations, etc are assessed before plastic surgery is paid for by the state.
Rights and Obligations – There is a clear similarity between being required to behave in certain way...

If we consider what is best for society as a whole, it is clear that keeping people healthy even in spite of their efforts to the contrary is worthwhile. First, because not to do so does not promote a caring society. Rather, it encourages one that turns away from millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. The assumption of freedom of choice is itself also questionable; consider the effective force of teen peer pressure, the increased likelihood that children with parents who smoke will also smoke, or other stressful conditions. \ Economically, the healthcare of the nation is important for maintaining a productive workforce. Do we really want to lose otherwise functional members of the workforce the first time they contract an aggravated throat infection and cannot afford, or delay for financial reasons, a simple course of antibiotics?\ If we now consider the nature of healthcare, is clear that in contrast to welfare, hospitals necessarily have to treat the results of reckless behaviour all the time. ‘Accident and Emergency’ departments, the ‘Emergency Room’ etc. -- are daily stuffed with arms broken whilst drunk, eyes taken out by the misuse of fireworks, and even injuries sustained in the course of criminal acts. Drawing any line, at which someone’s actions remove from the state a medical duty of care to that person, is arbitrary. What about drug users (criminals in most countries)? What about those who practice sadomasochism (criminals in many countries) -- another act that necessarily entails injury? The way that healthcare actually works makes this policy inconsistent, and thus unjustifiable.\
Resource Availability and Likely Effectiveness of Treatment – Different countries have different deg...

Rejecting and discrediting the link between the tax on tobacco and healthcare costs would politicize the sleeping issue of ‘smokers’ rights’, probably vigorously among those who have smoked for many years, and feel they are due the returns from their inflated investment in the system. The UK currently takes 60% of the cost of cigarettes in tax. Smokers are net contributors to the treasury to the tune of around £8Bn. Considering rises in the numbers smoking in some sections of society -- young women in particular -- nobody is going to buy the ‘effective deterrent’ argument. Duty would thus be much harder to justify where smokers do not even get healthcare for their money. This means a potential drop in cigarette prices. This means potentially more smokers. At worst, this means more of a strain on state healthcare resources, as the private sector expands to accommodate more smokers and eats up resources. In the best-case scenario, it means an unstable balancing act between the overstretched state, disgruntled smokers, the loss of tobacco tax revenue, the potential for greater numbers smoking, and a shift towards private or outsourced medical care. It would be reckless to create such a house of cards. The persistence of smoking in spite of known risks, in spite of tax, implies that the temptations of tobacco would be too strong. Healthcare would adjust to accommodate tobacco’s appeal, not the reverse.
Operations and treatment are actually less likely even to work when they are provided for smokers. ...

Although everyone accepts that tobacco consumption is linked to a number of illnesses, none of these illnesses are only caused by smoking. So even in the case of a heavy smoker, we cannot be sure that their, e.g. lung cancer, definitely resulted from smoking rather than some other cause. Among lighter smokers, or former smokers who gave up before illness was diagnosed, making this link is even harder. Denying medical treatment to people by treating these possibilities as certainties is very unfair, and will lead to great inconsistencies and hard cases