BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.

The principle of paternalism, that the state may interfere with another person, against their will, with the motivation of protecting that person from harm,[1] underlines a wide range of policies and laws across the United States, and there is already a precedent for such paternalistic laws particularly within New York City. New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has enacted regulations on smoking, restaurants’ use of salt and trans fats. Laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, and other potentially harmful drugs are made with the goal to protect citizens. Seatbelt laws and the prohibition of cell phone use while driving all infringe upon a person’s freedom of choice but have been accepted for their inherent positive causation meaning there will be less deaths and injuries in accidents. Paternalistic policies are made to maintain the public’s safety and well-being with the assumption that the government “knows best.” Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces targets the growing problem of obesity in New York City. Although obesity has been a popular topic of discussion in the City, there has been negligible advancement in weight-loss. This growing problem shows that education is not enough to incentivize people to control themselves. Dr. Donald Klein writes, “A fleeting, short-term self that enjoys chocolate, nicotine, or heroin is working his will on an enduring self that pays the cost. Although we may fancy ourself a fully integrated and consistent being, it might make more sense to describe ourself as a bundle of multiple selves, selves that overlap, intermingle, and sometimes conflict”.[2] That more than 50% of New Yorkers are overweight shows the people do not recognize their own long term interests.[3]   Mayor Bloomberg’s goal is to limit soda consumption of the population. He has the wellbeing of New Yorkers in mind and he is following a precedent that people need guidance in personal choices. [1] Dworkin, Gerald, ‘Paternalism’, in Edward N. Zalta e., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010. [2] Klein, Daniel B., ‘The Moral Consequences of Paternalism’, Ideas on Liberty, May 1994. [3] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.
The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC.

Although rising obesity levels in the city have been a major issue in New York City recently, any measures already enacted have failed to curb the growing numbers of obese New Yorkers. The Bronx has the largest percentage of overweight adults, a staggering 70 percent; the other four boroughs also have seen increases in the past decade. Sixty-two percent of Staten Island adults are overweight; followed by Brooklyn, at 60 percent; Queens, at 57 percent; and Manhattan, at 47 percent, according to city health data.[1] The New York City Department of Health has enacted several programs promoting healthier living such as health fares in low-income areas and the Adopt A Bodega initiative, through which local bodegas or small delis and groceries agree to sell produce from family-owned, local farms, providing healthier foods to New Yorkers for reasonable prices. But the results, or rather lack of them, show that education and access are not enough.[2] As Mayor Bloomberg has argued, the ban will have an effect because it follows the principle that if some people have smaller portions given to them, they will consequently drink less. The Mayor doesn’t hope to prevent all people from drinking soda. In fact he emphasizes that this ban wouldn’t come close to restricting personal freedoms because people would still be free to order however much soda they would like. The customers would simply have to be served multiple containers.[3] This is not going to eradicate excessive sugar-intake, however a study by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, determined that 62% of drinks bought at restaurants were over the size limit and the result would be that the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant[4]. [1] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012. [2] ’New York City Healthy Bodegas Initiative 2010 Report’, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and NYC Center for Economic Opportunity. [3] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012. [4] Jaslow, Ryan, ‘Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?’, CBS News, 24 July 2012.
The City has the obligation to protect its citizenry

Thomas Jefferson said “the purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness”.[1] As an elected government led by Mayor Bloomberg, the government of New York City is obligated to lead the city in a positive direction. In Bloomberg’s case it was among his campaign promises “To achieve the biggest public health gains in the nation” and given his record with the smoking ban this kind of proposal is the obvious way to achieve such a goal.[2]  as the Soda ban is not an infringement upon personal rights but a necessary public health measure. The ban on large sodas does not prohibit the consumption of soda, it simply impedes negative choices for poor nutrition.[3] The City has an obligation to promote healthy living as a form of keeping its citizenry safe and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clearly states ‘Ourmission is to protect and promote the health of all New Yorkers’.[4] “Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’” but Mayor Bloomberg said, “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something.” The mayor continued by including how he viewed his duty: "I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.”[5] [1] Thomas Jefferson quoted by Hughes, David, ‘Ed Miliband doesn’t seem to know what government is for’, The Telegraph, 17 March 2010. [2] Paybarah, Azi, ‘Bloomberg Envisions 2013, Thompson Sees Empty Promises’, The New York Observer, 26 October 2009. [3] Park, Alice, ‘The New York City Soda Ban, and a Brief History of Bloomberg’s Nudges’, Time, 31 May 2012. [4] ‘About the NYC DOHMH’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. [5] Grynbaum, Michael M., ‘New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks’, The New York Times, 30 May 2012.
The Soda Ban is an infringement upon the personal right to choose

Although the soda ban is not a blanket prohibition of sugary drinks, the proposed ban impedes the public’s right to choose. ‘Big Government’ has become an important issue to many who view the extensive array of government regulations and laws as excessively interventionist and intruding.[1] By Mayor Bloomberg proposing this ban, he continues a trend of the government curbing citizens’ rights to choose, and interfering in the personal lives of its citizenry. The government has no right to be restricting the size of someone’s portions, this is the government regulating one’s diet. This ban inherently affects the consumer’s right to choose because it is prevents the choice of a larger size of soda. The Mayor hopes to influence New Yorkers’ choices toward better nutrition. Moreover Mayor Bloomberg’s method is not through a representative legislative body but through his personally appointed Board of Health (2),[2] the people have therefore been denied their right to choose, through their representatives, whether this legislation should be allowed. [1] ‘big government’, British & World English dictionary, Oxford university Press. [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.
The Ban Would Be a Barrier to Free Enterprise

The proposal for this ban on large sodas would only affect businesses regulated by the NYC Board of Health. Restaurants, delis, food carts, and concession stands at theaters and stadiums would be affected because they are considered Food Service Establishments (FSEs). The ban would exclude grocery stores, 7-Eleven’s, and other establishments that are not considered FSE’s but are regulated by the State. Consequently, the ban cause the FSE  to face repercussions as they would have to serve less soda (the goal of the ban), but also this selective, non-universal ban could encourage consumers to patronize other establishments where they would not be affected by the ban. There is currently a level of demand for large sodas in the market, but the ban would place a barrier on that whole sector of the market. It would be the government directly impeding free enterprise by providing different sets of rules for competing stores. In addition, New Yorkers would be encouraged to report violating establishments that would receive $200 fines.[1] It would be unfortunate to hurt businesses for a ban that wouldn’t necessarily be effective in its main goal to curb obesity because of the multiple blatant loopholes. [1] ‘From Supersized to Human-Sized: Reintroducing Reasonable Portions of Sugary Drinks in New York City’, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Briefing, 12 June 2012.
It is undemocratic to have the law pass through the board of health.

While the City has the right to exercise its abilities within the law to protect and aid New Yorkers, it must do so as a democratic body representing its constituents. The soda ban, whether it would actually do anything to curb obesity, is wrong because it isn’t representative of the people. Councilman Dan Halloran spoke at the ‘Million Gulp March’ in protest of the ban: “Mr. Mayor, if you want to make a law, go through your legislature, and make the law. Do not try to backdoor it through an administrative agency that is unaccountable to the people.”[1] Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to pass this ban without the input or approval of the people is undemocratic. The New York City Health Department is an eleven-person committee appointed by the Mayor.[2] Thus, there is a large risk of Mayor Bloomberg exercising his personal will through this branch without any regulation. The proposed soda ban would be a fiat with the rubber stamp of approval from the Board of Health, but no citizen input. [1] Arkin. James, ‘Councilman Halloran: Bloomberg ‘Missing Boat About Liberty’ With Soda Ban’, The Daily News, 11 July 2012. [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.
There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.

The ethical implications of paternalism are that the government is taking away personal freedoms because the government presumes that it “knows best” for the population. Paternalism inherently assumes that individuals cannot be trusted to make its own decisions. Personal freedom, however, is a cornerstone of the United States; The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee individual’s freedoms, limit the role of government, and reserve power to the people.[1] A competent person’s freedoms should never be infringed upon, even for that person’s own good. John Stuart Mill wrote, “. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign”.[2] The paternalistic policies cited by the proposition that apparently set a precedent for this ban on soda are not good comparisons. Smoking bans for example are paternalistic in nature yet are morally acceptable because smoking not only harms the person but also those surrounding the smoker through passive smoking. Henry David Thoreau was quoted in saying "[If] . . . a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life".[3] No government can be sure that their policies are what are universally right for its people; this should be left for the individual to decide. [1] McAffee, Thomas B., and Bybee, Jay S., ‘Powers reserved for the people and the states: a history of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments’, Praeger Publishers, Westport, 2006, P.2 [2] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1859. [3] Andre, Claire, and Velasquez, Manuel, ‘For Your Own Good’, Issues in Ethics, Vol.4, No.2, Fall 1991.
The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC.

The ban is unnecessary because it will prove to be useless. Although the Bloomberg-appointed Board of Health gave their rubber stamp of approval to Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal, several board members voiced their apprehension of the ban and its effectiveness. Board member, Dr. Michael Phillips brought up the fact that the ban unfairly targeted establishments regulated by the city because those regulated by the state—7-Elevens and grocery stores—would continue selling larger sodas. The ban also focuses on sugary drinks alone.[1] "We're really looking at restricting portion size, so the argument could be…what about the size of a hamburger or the jumbo fries, and all that kind of stuff?” The mayor himself said in the MSNBC interview that the goal was to target portion size.[2] Yet, somebody can easily buy four 16-ounce drinks and be worse for it. The people could also pass the deli and patronize the grocery store for large sodas, affecting the Deli’s business while still maintaining high sugar intake. The ban would be useless in fighting obesity because there are too many easily accessed loopholes and as it stands now, would just be a major inconvenience. [1] Saul, Michael Howard, ‘City Drinks Plan Questioned’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 June 2012. [2] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012.
The City has the obligation to protect its citizenry

There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?
An identity card scheme is open to subversion and abuse

Demanding identity cards has already been shown as a way for police officers and officials to harass minority groups by singling them out for questioning and searches[1]. This motion would simply serve as a thinly-veiled excuse for more intrusive searches which the law would not otherwise allow. This motion could also lead police to believe that those with a criminal record on their identity cards who just happen to be near a crime scene when a crime happens must be involved. This would lead to an unfair perversion of justice as those individuals are seen as the ‘usual suspects’, perhaps blinding the police eye to the real culprits if they did not previously have a criminal record. [1] Accessed from http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/ on 10/09/11
The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent

The more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’[1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to prove that you are the owner of the card would be to have your biological information – like your fingerprints - scanned[2]. Moreover, if your details were stolen online and used without your knowledge, the ‘illusion of security’[3] surrounding the cards would make it very difficult to probe that it was not in fact you who was using the card. Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft also pointed out that ‘if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones’[4]. It is also unreasonable to expect someone to carry this card on them at all times, particularly if police or other authorities are able to stop and search on demand. Overall, the introduction of biometric identity card would create enormous problems for the everyday user if the slightest thing went wrong. [1] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11. [3] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11. [4] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.
Identity cards confer advantages on their users

Just as some people have difficulty remembering so many passwords, so some people have difficulty remembering where they misplaced their belongings. This motion offers no solution if somebody should lose their identity card; given that it may be used to have access to a bank account, act as a travel card or simply be used to grant general access to the bearer, how could they possibly survive if they lost it? It is reasonable to assume that a biometric identity card might take as long or longer than a passport (which contains some biometric data) to be replaced. Given that in the UK it takes three weeks to receive a new passport if you lose it[1] and can cost between £77.50 and £112.50, this is simply too expensive and too slow for the average citizen to be able to continue with their daily life. A week without access to daily necessities such as your own bank account is too long to wait. [1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/howlongittakesandurgentappplications/DG_174148 on 10/09/11
Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger

It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that medical emergencies require fast action – but that’s the exact reason why we use medical alert bracelets[1]. We already have a simply, non-intrusive way of ensuring that somebody who suffers from an illness such as epilepsy or diabetes can be quickly identified – without the need for an expensive and illiberal measure such as identity cards. Moreover, in the need to contact a relative, why not simply use their mobile number? Even if mobile umbers were now required by the government at all times, this is still far less intrusive than the scheme which proposition proposes. [1Accessed from http://medicsalertbracelets.com/ on 10/09/11
This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty

Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications[1], social security numbers[2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks[3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim. [1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Foreigntravel/AirTravel/DG_176737 on 10/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ on 10/09/11. [3] Accessed from http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm on 10/09/11.
Identity cards confer advantages on their users

The average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for of identification and save the user the hassle of carrying so many documents around with them. Given that ‘the average person now has to remember five passwords, five PIN numbers, two number plates, three security ID numbers and three bank account numbers just to get through everyday life’[1], there is evidently a need for a single, concise form of identification. Moreover, it would help them to identify the people they have to interact with. There have been numerous cases of criminals posing as company officials such as gas workers in order to gain access to somebody’s home and steal from them[2][3]. These identity cards would particularly help vulnerable citizens who are the most at risk of this kind of injustice. For this reason these cards should be compulsory, they would not be much use as identification if not everyone had one that could be checked by anybody. [1] Accessed from http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150874/too_many_passwords_or_not_enough_brain_power.html on 10/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/localnews/9235106.Edmonton_burglar_who_preyed_on_pensioners_jailed/ on 10/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/news-articles/cash-stolen-by-distraction-burglars-in-kidderminster.html on 10/09/11
Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger

As biometric identity cards would be able to store medical data, they could be instrumental in saving somebody’s life. For example, if somebody suddenly suffered an epileptic fit, it would be much faster for medical staff to find out their illness and medical history no matter where there medical records are held as everyone’s records would be linked to their ID card[1], allowing them to be treated faster and more efficiently. It would also be easier to contact a friend or relative if they knew the last place where they had used their identity card, allowing faster unity of family in a medical emergency. [1] Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-for-europe/science-eco-bite_en.html on 10/09/11
This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty

Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record[1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups[2]. Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights. [1] Accessed from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn258.pdf on 10/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11