BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Terrorism

Terror remains a key concern both in and about Africa. A key issue with a potential open sky agreement is who will regulate it and how. Effective control to prevent terrorism is required; passengers and nations need to be ensured security. Liberalising airlines and markets potentially lays the foundation for a new risk of terror and insecurity. West African airports have been particularly criticised for their lax security which creates an insider threat (Brandt, 2011). More planes, more staff, and more passengers mean a higher probability of risk. Is liberalisation best when we consider the war on terror, and emerging security risks?
Alliances not open skies

The success of airlines such as Kenya Airways has emerged through alliances; not an ‘open sky’ agreement. The airline has created alliances with small airline carriers such as Precision Air to ensure more frequent coverage, competitive prices and provision of services to new destinations. Increased connectivity across Africa requires more alliances between individual airlines, not necessarily an open sky agreement. The alliances made ensure universal boundaries, rules, and regulations, are set through corporate ethics and responsibility. Alliances mean the corporate brand is at stake. Alliances are a safer option when we consider who will set the rules with an ‘open sky’ agreement in Africa. Alliances can ensure safety measures remain central for airlines, and the private actors are held responsible. However, the definitions of, and decisions on, rules become blurred with an ‘open sky’.  Who will have the last say? Whose decision will hold power? A regulatory board is required, which can be granted through alliances.
Focusing on national development first

An open sky agreement will only act to reinforce the brain drain occurring in Africa. The level of development across Africa remains uneven, with disparities found across the continent based on GDP, PPP, FDI, and social development. An open sky agreement may act as cumulative causation for out-migration of trained professionals and white-collar jobs to more developed countries. One very obvious brain drain as a result of air travel is that there have been eight hijackings of Ethiopian Airlines by pilots attempting to get asylum in the last 25 years (Nadeau, 2014). The reality would bring detrimental effects for some countries, and prosperity for others. The unequal geography of development in Africa will persist.
A competitive airline industry

To what extent will a competitive industry emerge if direct problems are not resolved? The issue is not simply a need to introduce more airlines. Airline prices cannot be reduced unless fuel prices are lowered. The cost of buying fuel for airlines remains higher in Africa; suggesting that it is not just the airline market but also the market in fuel supplies that requires change. There will be no opportunity for European style budget airlines so long as fuel is expensive. Additionally, can a competitive airline industry emerge without transparency and good governance first? The fact good governance remains debatable in many African states raises a question of how the market will work. As new business opportunities arise who will be setting up new airlines? It is likely to be government cronies or those with support from the government rather than those with the most innovative models.
Incorporating foreign airlines

We need to be critical of what foreign business and multinational corporations can do for Africa. Earnings from foreign airlines will likely leave the continent rather than being used for African development. There will be some benefit with some local workers, particularly in airports, but the degree of power inequality between foreign airline owners and local people implies benefits will be unequally spread. On another hand, what will incentivise foreign airlines to stay? Markets are volatile; therefore a long-term vision is required. What will ensure foreign investors buying airlines are encouraged to stay and actually build a stable, functioning airline market rather than simply taking advantage of the few routes where they can make a quick profit?
Environmental Impact

Sustainable development does not mean stopping development. The SDGs emphasise how a new perspective is required for future development. There is no evidence to suggest an open-sky agreement would increase environmental degradation, nor is there to say that if an open-sky agreement is not implemented we will develop in a more sustainable way. The introduction of open-skies will mean an introduction of better planes – more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly designs as a result of competition on quality and safety. Advancements have been made over time to improve the environmental performance of aeroplanes. Today’s planes are 75% quieter, with carbon-monoxide levels declining by 50%, and increasingly more fuel-efficient[1]. An open-skies agreement enables new ideas and designs to be integrated, encouraging the implementation of sustainable models.  Sustainable development is about how we understand, appreciate, and implement future objectives. An open sky agreement is not necessarily unsustainable. [1] See further readings: IATA, 2014.
Terrorism

We need to be cautious in falling into the ‘terror discourse’. Since 9/11 the cases of hijacking have not risen substantially. The discourse is a key concern among Western states. Terror is a risk, however Western states have implemented open-sky agreements – such as between the US-EU despite such threats. So why should the risk of terror stop Africa implementing open-skies when the Global North has done so? It returns to the relations of power in the global-political economy. The global-political system is key in constructing a discourse of fear and using this to influence how we act, invest, and work. We need to deconstruct the terror discourse first, to understand what really are the risks and whether liberalising air networks will really make a difference either way. Once the specific risks have been analysed those that are concerns can be addressed including any concerns about terrorism.
A directly elected upper house discourages patronage

Politicians who elect or appoint the members of the upper house have an incentive to put their friends an allies there, because this will make their decision making easier. This is patronage pure and simple: the public will have a hard time sending them away when, if ever, a scandal breaks because the members of the upper house don't depend on public opinion to remain in their seats. An example is the case of a senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once had partaken in terrorist activities, it took almost a year and several mediation attempts to get him removed from parliament.[1] [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/senator-told-to-resign-over-g... last consulted August 15, 2011.
An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides more room to involve experts

Appointment or indirect election provides space to involve eminent or expert people into politics. Often, expert and eminent people don't have the time or resources to work on building a career in politics. An example is veteran professional hockey coach Jacques Demers, who was appointed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become a Senator. Demers has been nearly illiterate for all his life but has been a very successful coach. As a Senator, Demers helped raise awareness and generate policy to enhance literacy across Canada.[1] [1] TSN, ‘FORMER NHL COACH DEMERS TO BE NAMED TO SENATE’. 27 August 2009. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=288991 last consulted August 15, 2011.
An appointed or indirectly elected upper house helps policy implementation

Appointment or indirect election provides space to involve leaders of business and civil society in politics. Just like above-mentioned experts, they often don't have time to build a career in politics. But they do have first-hand knowledge of the effects of policy on their businesses and associations. By co-opting them in the legislative process, policy makers don't have to wait until policy is fully implemented to receive feedback on the feasibility of their ideas.
A directly elected upper house is more democratic

Democracy isn't just 'direct elections'. Democracy is a means to ensure good governance. Stating that an appointed or indirectly elected upper house is 'undemocratic' is not enough. Instead, the proposition should show why an appointed or indirectly elected upper house hinders good governance. Moreover, given the fact that the upper house is either appointed by the directly elected executive, as in Canada, or elected by directly elected provincial legislatures, as in the Netherlands, the people still have the right to decide how they are governed, only indirectly.
A directly elected upper house discourages patronage

Appointers and electors have to think about their reputation more. Unethically and unprofessionally behaved members of the upper house can still be sent away, either by the politicians who appointed or elected them or by independent inquiry. An example of this is of a Senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once aided freedom fighters in an assault on the Dutch government, he was sent away after careful inquiry.[1] [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/senator-told-to-resign-over-g... last consulted August 15, 2011.
An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides 'sober second thought'

Sober second thought is undemocratic. A directly elected upper house can also provide an extra cycle in the legislative process if this is deemed desirable. When it comes to 'halting hypes', we need to realize that what constitutes a political hype is also a political choice. Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people'. If public pressure for a certain law is mounting, this means that apparently a large part of the public is urgently in favor of it. If democracy truly means 'rule by the people', then the legislative should respond to this kind of public pressure and not effectively hinder the rule of the people out of some misguided notion of 'political hype'.
An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides more room to involve experts

Expert opinion shouldn't play a role at the legislative stage of political decision making. Expertise is relevant for policy making, but doesn't have a place in the legislative. The legislative is a place for deliberation and negotiation amongst public interests. Expert opinion should inform policy making either via expert policy makers who work for ministries and departments and help draft legislation before it is launched, or via the public, whom they inform and persuade via articles, talk shows and publicizing research.
The right to live to regret

The primary duty placed on doctors, by society and themselves, is the preservation of life. In pursuing this goal they use not only medicines and scalpels but, first and foremost, their judgement. In many countries practising medics swear an oath to this effect; although these vary greatly in detail, they are well encapsulated by the Declaration of Geneva[i], the critical clause of which for the purpose of this debate is “The health of my patient will be my first consideration”. Asking doctors to take other considerations into account is not only a breach of their professional integrity, it also poses grave risks for society. They are being asked, in this situation, to allow the opinions of a third party take precedence over the wellbeing of their patient. If this were a younger relative with their eye on an inheritance or a distant sibling seeking to settle an old score, the dangers would be all too apparent. In this instance, the motivation may be well-intentioned but it is no more reasonable. Allowing relatives to say “well, what I think you should do is X” in defiance of medical opinion is fraught with dangers. If a relative decided on behalf of a patient to reject chemotherapy in favour of prayer or expressed their preference for Shamanic rituals rather than medication, why not let them. After all their intent is just as compassionate and their reasoning as solid. [i] There are several forms of the declaration some of them, including the modern one in most common usage, can be found here.
Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others

Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example[i]. We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die when an available remedy could save their life. [i] Sue Reid. "Britain's voodoo killers: This week a minister warned of a wave of child abuse and killings linked to witchcraft. Alarmist? This investigation suggests otherwise." Daily Mail, 17 August 2012.
The status of the child

The protection of children is treated differently from how we address the needs of adults. The very fact that their parents’ consent for procedures is required acknowledges that fact. We further accept that when that consent is questionable - when the parents may not be acting in the best interests of the child - that right may be revoked. In most instances of such revocation, if the parent is an addict or mentally incapable of a particular decision, such a decision can be determined well in advance. However, in this instance, the status of the parent has not previously been an issue. However, the same principles should surely apply. For example, if a parent has been denied access rights to their child by a court, they would have no standing in making any such decision. If their child is a ward of the court, the same would apply. Society has a general duty to at least keep children alive until they reach the age of majority and remove all possible obstacles to that happening. We do not allow parents to give their children the right to pursue other harmful activities or to take unnecessary risks with their safety; the principle of a presumption of protection would also apply here.
Freedom of religious observance

Most cultures respect the right of adults to practice the religious observances of their choosing and to raise their children within that tradition. The prohibition of blood transfusion is a part of the observances of JWs and is worthy of the respect that might be expected of other religiously motivated decisions. There are other religious observances that have medical implications, for example the rejection of certain vaccines, but society accepts that it is appropriate for parents to inculcate their children with the values in the practical outworking of their faith[i]. The refusal to accept blood products may seem reckless to outsiders but there is no suggestion that parents take their decision lightly; it would be difficult to conceive of how they would do so. What then is the alternative? Allowing the state to sanction which religions are acceptable or which practices of those religions? Such an act would strike not only at the freedom of religious practice but at the very principle of freedom of conscience more generally. If the state can challenge these views because it does not like the consequences, then why not social or political opinions? This is the first step on a road to tyranny. [i] Jennifer Steinhauer. New York Times. Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines. 21 March 2008.
The burden of parental responsibility

Societies recognise the importance of parenting and the enormous responsibilities that go with it. In light of these, the parent is allowed broad discretion in determining how those responsibilities are best exercised. It seems likely that a parent in a situation such as this is likely to undertake a great deal more soul searching and thought than could be expected of an external party. This is a decision that is made in good conscience and, as things stand in most countries, within the law. Medical experts and others may well have opinions, frequently strongly held, but they are just that – opinions. The very fact that this issue has come to court, been heard and judges have reached differing decisions demonstrates that this is not an argument against fact. The opinions of parents are often supported by expert and legal authority. The parents can be expected to consider these opinions among many but must be left free to act in what they believe is the best interest of the child.
The division between the personal and social spheres

The law is a cumbersome tool to use in matters that relate to family life; this can be seen in the reluctance to legislate too much in this area. In those areas that require massive social interaction and agreement, such as education, there is a need for legislation but even that frequently proves to be controversial and many parents take the opportunity to opt out. This is particularly true in the moral, ethical and religious education of children as it is recognised, both implicitly and explicitly that this is a matter for the family. How then is this different? That there are repercussions to the decisions individuals make regarding their religious beliefs is beyond question but we still leave them free to make them – the pacifist may go to prison but cannot be compelled to fight. The same principle applies here; decisions based on deep religious conviction are a matter for the individual or, in this case, their family. The views of the family are respected in the choice of whether to prolong the life of someone in a permanent vegetative state, regardless of medical opinion about the individual case. Many consider PVS to be “more dead than dead”.[i] Despite this religious views on the matter, which often compare ‘pulling the plug’ to assisting suicide, are given a level of respect that cannot be justified by the available medical evidence. Although inverted, approaching the issue of the relationship between faith and death from the opposite angle – keeping the dead ‘alive’ rather than allowing the living to die – the same level of respect for the beliefs involved would seem to apply. [i] Tune, Lee, “Vegetative State Seen as More Dead than the Dead, UMD Study Finds”, University of Maryland, 22 August 2011, http://newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=2484
The right to live to regret

Proposition have made a lovely argument, except for one small detail, nobody is suggesting prayer or ritual as a replacement for medical attention. The issue here, as defined by proposition, is whether JW parents should be able to reject blood transfusions on behalf of their child. No more than that; no witchcraft wards or miracle cures. This is just a consideration of whether, given the time for discussion and consideration, the religious views of parents and, usually, their child should be able to say that perspectives other than a strictly medical one should be considered in addressing a complex human situation.
The status of the child

We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.
Freedom of religious observance

We frequently set limits not on religious beliefs but on their practices. The two determinant used there are the possible harm to others and whether the person being harmed can be deemed ‘capable’ in a legal sense. There can be no doubt that the decision to refuse available medical treatment causes harm, that is beyond dispute. The issue then is whether the person harmed, the child, can be considered capable. Legally they cannot, they cannot enter into a contract, they cannot marry or vote, legally they are not allowed to make many decisions because they are not full members of society until they are adults. It is worth noting that if the child is not deemed competent to make a decision regarding their own healthcare, it is difficult to see how their determination of their own religious choices can be assumed as authoritative. So the child cannot make the decision and the parents actions would cause harm to the child. In the light of this, the only remaining opinion is that of the doctor.
The burden of parental responsibility

Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.
The division between the personal and social spheres

Society does intervene in the private sphere to prevent harm. Domestic abuse is simply the most obvious example but parents are also responsible in most societies for ensuring their children receive an education in accordance with the law. If a parent were to deny their children food when it was available, it would be neglect. If they were to deny them shelter and protection when available, it would be neglect or abuse. It is difficult to see how denying them healthcare, when available, would not fall into the same category.