BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Encouraging dissemination of human rights ideals

The Opp is trying to prove that by abolishing the UNHRC, we will lose a body that represents the eastern region and values, since the western world is over-represented already. What team Prop is going to show is that this body is certainly not a representative of eastern values, so abolishing it will not create a single harm in that term. For starters, the Opp bases this entire argument on the assumption that HR campaigns are oriented westward. In order to prove a claim of this magnitude, we believe stronger and less subjective evidence that the Supreme Islamic Council of Canada is required. A local religious organization aimed at spreading Islam. [[http://bit.ly/oM7jCR]] Even if we accept the unfounded assumption that many of the international HR organizations favor western perceptions of HR, we intend to prove UNHRC has always promoted western ideals. In the previous argument Opp presented the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resolution as a grand UNHRC achievement. [[http://bit.ly/kAC3Bs]] First of all, it was past amid strong criticism of South Africa (the sponsor) by some African nations. Furthermore, bearing in mind that Muslim countries are governed by Sharia law, homosexuality is seen as one of the biggest criminal acts and is punishable with death in many countries (Saudi Arabia a member of UNHRC included). This means that contrary to what negation is saying, even the UNHRC is promoting progressive western ideals, in direct conflict with the eastern values. Team Opp claims that “abolishing UNHRC will be seen as an act against the involvement of the rest of the world” but its successor will be an international body as well so we don’t see how this could happen. Finally, presuming that abolishing the council will cause "hostility towerds other HR bodies" is a big logical leap that was not proven, especial when we take in consideration its inability to protect HR and its pro west HR perception.
Disproportional and ineffective protection of human rights

The UN doesn’t have the unlimited resources and attention to effectively find and deal with all possible HR violations all over the world. Therefore it makes much more sense, instead of spreading our resources too thin in a less effective manner, to focus on some of the issues and do a good job of dealing with them. Even if we deal with only a relatively small number of violations, this could reflect on other violators who will know the UN is monitoring and acting firmly on HR issues. The example given of Darfur actually strengthens the opposition case, since it demonstrates how even when a country is, as expected, making extensive efforts in all possible channels, to cover up their HR violations, the UNHRC’s mechanism eventually makes these efforts futile and indeed the prop should update that the UNHRC recently looked into the Darfur situation, as part of its periodic review mechanism.[[http://is.gd/m8UlsY]] Regarding the East Jerusalem issue: prop’s burden, which was not met, is to prove that the UNHRC’s existence has exacerbated the situation. Actually, it would be more reasonable to assume that without the UNHRC, which does monitor the Israeli-Arab conflict very closely, there would have been even more violations. And we’ll add more on that in our points.
A serious look at Proposition’s logic

Refuting our first argument team Opp stated: Opposition Prop itself hints at an alternative way around bloc voting, stating that there's "absence of an objectively determined criteria when defining HR violation", but this is certainly no reason to put an end to this important council. Rather, a criteria can be set by the same body that erected the UNHRC and elects its members - the General Assembly. Now they changed their strategy, claiming that such criteria cannot exist in a UN body. In this argument they agree with us that the criteria would in fact mean abolition, and that POLITICS come before HR in the UNHRC. UNHRC is comprised of 47 rotating members. Compared to GA’s 193 we see a clear limitation of the “politization” and participation of “all nations worldwide”. The absolute veto power of members of the Security Council is another example. Different bodies have different needs; partially limiting the politicization in order to achieve effectiveness is not a new concept in the UN, and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be used if it brings sufficient benefits. Replacing the political approach with criteria (when determining if HR violation occurred)will not undermine the intergovernmental structure of the body,nor decrease cooperation. It is only natural that the members of the body will AGREE upon the criteria as they AGREE on the statute when a new body is created. As we stated earlier, the members will still vote on actions, strategies, recommendations etc. When a body needs a decade to react on a genocide, (in spite of massive pleas for help from the citizens) there is obviously a malfunction in that body. In our previous arguments we showed how the mechanisms present in the status quo are unable to stop bloc voting, allow major HR violators to become members and avoid prosecution, and allow obvious violations to be ignored. If partially limiting the politization solves these problems it is reasonable to do so.
Priority must be on the knowledge of one's status and ultimate protection of the affected; not rights

The real question is whether compulsory testing will find people who are infected faster. It would obviously logistically be impossible to have testing of everyone pretty much all the time and any sweep of compulsory testing would probably be once every few years at best so leaving people for years without knowing. If this can be combined with voluntary testing between times then this would be best but a good voluntary scheme needs a lot of resources to be avaliable as widely as possible and so will the compulsory scheme so as to keep it going. In poor countries it is likely that only one could be done.
Priority must be on the knowledge of one's status and ultimate protection of the affected; not rights

First, the proposition also gives and opportunity for one to know their status. But beyond that, it looks at how the affected can be protected from infections - whether the latter is deliberate or incidental. It is significant to note that one can not take responsibility for something they do not know anything about. The sonner they are forced to test, the better the chances of everyone knowing their status, and living a responsible life. There may be a serious need to label the infected in the interest of protecting the uninfected. If a woman falls in love with an HIV positive person, it is only fair that she knows the status of the boyfriend and vice versa - love is blind and governments should not live problems of this epidemic the to the idea of mere affections and lusts or even real love for that matter, if the latter was ever true in the 21st century. The idea of a right to choice and privacy is far outweighed by the benefits of the implemantation of compulsory testing. It is unacceptable for one to delibarately hide his/her status when they know the implications for the larger society. Labelling therefore gives no chance for hiding behinds dangerous rights such as choice and privacy. When rights are problematic, they can be limited by logic and fair decisions. As more people see the status of others, More people will be sceptical of delibarately engaging in unprotected sex and More HIV infected will receive immediate help from the state that knows the real than inaccurate statistics.
Something radical needs to be done

Dr Brian Williams The only real success story is the development of these extremely effective drugs that keep people alive and reduce their viral load by up to 2,000 times. They become close to non-infectious. While the rapid scale-up in the provision of ART [Anti-retroviral-treatment] in the last five years has exceeded expectations, it has not reduced HIV-transmission and Aids-related TB because it has been given too late in the course of infection." While the universal testing is obviously needed the labeling if the infection is caught early may well not be necessary because early detection and treatment would prevent transmission.[[Anti-retrovirals could halt Aids spread in five years, BBC News, 21/2/10, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8526690.stm%5D%5D
Something radical needs to be done

It is obvious that there need to be big changes in how we fight HIV/AIDS. Compulsory (presumably universal) testing is one thing that needs to be done if we are to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS. It is however possible that the labeling will not be necessary if there is universal testing. Dr Brian Williams "The tragedy is that the disease continues unabated... We've been using drugs to save lives, but not stop the infection [[Anti-retrovirals could halt Aids spread in five years, BBC News, 21/2/10, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8526690.stm%5D%5D Universal testing will mean that we can get to those who are infected earlier and can treat them as well as helping to prevent them infecting others. Having both them and others know that they are infected is part of this.
businesses need transport to remain cost efficient; we need good business to get out of the recession

In recession, businesses suffer. Equally, businesses suffer from bad transport. If we have a bad and untimely transport system, people are late to work. This costs British economy money and valuable GDP (Gross Domestic Productivity). This is not the only way in which businesses lose out due to poor public transport. A lot of people use public transport and if it is no longer reliable will have to resort to cars which will lead to (heavy)traffic(jams) and pollution. Both of which we don't need.Leading to furthermore workplace inefficiency(e.g.Coming Late to work,coming to work flustered driving on busy road=bad temper). Prospective employees are daunted by the prospect of long hours of commuting in poor spaces. Therefore, they will apply to jobs closer to their homes. Therefore employers to catch the best employees would have to buy more expensive plots of land which have the best transport links. Like that of central London. If we had a better infrastructure and transport systems businesses could begin to spread themselves out of large cities and thus become more efficient as they spend less on land costs.
it is the environmentally friendly thing to do

It is ridiculous that whilst we are being encouraged by the Government to drive less, recycle more and be more environmentally responsible. They will fly abroad and attend meetings on how to attain these goals, yet they will not take the first step in their own country. Providing efficient transport. Currently old inefficient trains and buses are being used. These are not only slow but damaging to the environment. If we invested in the transport system we would see a vast improvement in the world around us. Trams have proven to be extremely efficient. They create less CO2 emissions and they do not create as much noise pollution. It is for this reason that the transport system should be invested into. Walking and cycling are only viable travel options if you live close to the business. Given the densely overpopulated nature of cities, finding affordable properties in this area is nigh impossible.
it is the only way to stop our lazy nation from driving

Currently too many people drive. There are too many cars per household and too many people drive for short journeys. Appealing to people's inner eco-fighter is clearly not working. The continually rising price of petrol has also had little effect on people's driving habits. Drivers would rather make cut back elsewhere than on their driving costs. Why? Because the transport system is so inefficient. There are not enough convenient stations. There is not enough reliability in public transport. The conditions are not sufficient. These three issues need to be addressed in order to prevent people from driving and save the environment. The NO side is right to say that we are in a serious crash of the economic system. But this is not an argument against mass transit. People are not lazy because they drive; they are faced with jobs and stores which are too far and unaccessible by mass transit, in its current pathetic state. Government priorities are certifiably psychotic: spending most tax money on predatory war and ways to police people when they desperately step over legal boundaries to stay alive, but on the other hand lie prostate when corporations and banks steal billions, and spend a token to fulfill their mandates of "providing for the common welfare" (which I assume is in most constitutions). The pitiful state of mass transit is just one telling sign that people everywhere have no say in their governance.
it will boost the tourism of London

Think of various cities in the world that tourists travel to. Hong Kong. New York. London. Paris. What do they all have in common. Vast mass transit systems. Paris has trams, Paris has the Metro. The stops are so close together and yet people still cram onto these units. Tourists still want to visit these units. They will pay to suffer the cramped conditions. This increases revenue! Not only for the transport system but by drawing people into the city in the first place. Then we come to London. People visit from all over the world and they want to use the Underground. New York, the subway! Traveling downtown, uptown, west end, east end. It is the transport that brings tourists/international-foreign-students-faculty in. In order to boost tourism we should invest in our transport. This will bring in long term profits; this is a lot more than the short term benefit of making cut backs.
businesses need to transport their goods.

We forget that it is not only people that need transportation, but also goods. We need to be able to transport goods across the country with as little cost attached to businesses as possible. We need to be able to have cheap land costs where goods are produced with efficient transport to take the goods to where they can be sold. This is the essence of a good infrastructure. A networking of supply and demand. It is by no means a coincidence that the greatest cities of commerce are centered around good transport links. Historically the water was the greatest mode of transport. This is why big cities are all near water. Docks. Rivers. Even London is based upon the river Thames. In order to maintain commerce we need to maintain transport. This is the philosophy the government should take.
Crossrail should steam ahead

The Crossrail Act received Royal assent in 2008. So much careful planning had gone into this. The amount of time that this would have taken, and money means that we should plow ahead with these plans. To start making cutbacks in this area would only result in more financial loss. However, if the Government are wise and continue with the development, they could see a return of 36 billion G.B.P [[http://www.crossrail.co.uk/]].
Both major London terror attempts were associated with public places and public transport

Which means that public transport reforms are necessary for a safer London (thus England thus Britain). We must not let terrorists believe that tuba stations are easy targets better(yet time efficient) security checks need to be placed. [[http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2010/06/01/funding-cuts-will-risk-2012-london-olympics-brit-intelligence-chiefs-107094/]] Generally leaving bombs on buses,taxis,trains,airplanes/ aeroplanes/subway-stations/tube-stations/M.R.Ts/bus-stations as such is fairly common.
the recession will go, our public transport will remain

You are deluded if you think that this recession will lift of its own accord. Britain is now 890,000,000 G.B.P in debt [[April 2010; http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/%5D%5D. Temporary is not necessarily a short time. Cuts need to made to squeeze this recession into a short-lived one. We're not suggesting, doing away with public transport; just cutting down on unnecessary costs. To achieve a bit of economic efficiency if you will. Cuts need to be made. Plans need to be delayed. To coin the headline of this point in our terms; the transport is already there, the money is not.
We need to prepare for London 2012 Olympics

London Olympics 2012 – we need to improve our transport system to decrease overcrowding on the existing infrastructure. Currently, throughout the day the conditions on the tube are appalling and frightful. Overcrowding at tube stations is a particular concern considering the threat to safety. With the London Olympics on their way, we need to improve the transport system to avoid a gridlock situation. There will be more people wanting to travel across London whilst these games are continuing and our current transport system will not be able to deal with the added demand. [[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE64C1JR20100513]]
businesses need transport to remain cost efficient; we need good business to get out of the recession

People are willing to travel these hours, therefore businesses do not lose out on employees. People get the best pay in the city and the cheaper housing in more sparsely populated areas. This is what people want and they are willing to travel for it. In 2009 it was estimated that in Britain, people spend 21.8 million hours a day(which incidentally, only has 24 hours; this figure is the approximate number of workers multiplied by the hours they spend in going to and coming from work) traveling to and from work, [[http://www.tuc.org.uk/work_life/tuc-17223-f0.cfm]]. They are willing to do this on the infrastructure that exists; what benefit is there in expanding it? "Prospective employees are daunted by the prospect of long hours of commuting in poor spaces. Therefore, they will apply to jobs closer to their homes. Therefore employers to catch the best employees would have to buy more expensive plots of land which have the best transport links. Like that of central London." - this makes very little sense because the best employers are already in central London; it's 'employees' that need to buy expensive homes/apartments to move closer to work not vice versa. Homes in commercial areas everywhere in the world tend to be more expensive than homes in the countryside/suburbs; precisely because there are businesses,offices,markets,shops, and schools in the vicinity. Whether we develop the transport system further or not; cheaper homes entail longer commuting hours(as they are further off from commercial areas). Some people appreciate the journey.
it is the environmentally friendly thing to do

If people move/live closer to businesses they are likely to walk/cycle more. Adding a tax on road traffic pollution can mean less traffic on the road and the government cashing in on it(win-win). On the other hand road traffic isn't the biggest polluting-transport culprit ; it's air traffic. Humans exhale carbon dioxide; car exhaust fumes contain carbon monoxide. Actually; the more we promote civilian marathons; walking/running/cycling longer distances becomes more and more feasible as does a marked amelioration in general public health. if the reason for opting out of public transport is expenses then buying a car running on petrol makes no sense. Reiterating; cutting down on development costs does not mean no more public transport system. People who live afar and use the tube ;will be able to continue doing so, after development costs are cut. However; other more ecologically friendly means of travel are further encouraged.
it is the only way to stop our lazy nation from driving

Why do we want people to stop driving? We are fighting tooth and nail to keep our motoring industry open. Why would we want to entice Britain's drivers away? There is no consistency in the ideology of these concepts. We want people to drive, your argument fails to establish why we want 'lazy drivers' to stop driving. counter: Public transport also runs on petrol(petroleum/gas); the only ecological advantage it brings to the table is that many more people can fit into a bus/train/metro than a car(so every commuter's carbon footprint potentially becomes a smaller fraction of what it would be if they were traveling in a smaller vehicle: the erroneous assumption behind this notion is that both travel options are completely packed whenever used) . Practically: people can buy vans and car-pool to achieve the same results in terms of carbon emissions per person(each individual's carbon footprint). Buses/metros are rarely filled to the rim yet they run everyday at every half hour or hour thus realistically cause more pollution than cars.
it will boost the tourism of London

Once you have seen one train you have seen them all. The London Underground is a national asset. Tourists come to view that national asset. It started construction in 1870. The history of the tube is what attracts people, not the fact that is a mode of transport! Tourists will visit Britain for the London Underground, not some newfangled system we make. Counter: Tourists who want guided tours pay extra for them.(guided tours are not included in public transport),Tourism companies are private enterprises(or can be).While Margaret Thatcher's investment in the tertiary sector paid off; more investment in it will not change things much; since Britain boasts of proliferating throngs of tourists anyhow. Tourists care more for their security than inexpensive quality transport. Going to the island by ferry or air isn't the cheapest enterprise by any count. Once there cutting down on transport costs is silly to say the least( save a penny lose a dime?) The ones that bother to understand the tube system(and it is complicated for non-London-ers; even if they are British) are coming to have a taste of the real London and are willing to sweat and toil for it.
businesses need to transport their goods.

Businesses can use Fed-ex (private not public) and maybe start their own transport systems raking in cash for new/old businesses, employees etc. [[http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=london+private+transport&fb=1&gl=pk&hq=private+transport&hnear=London,+UK&view=text&ei=AikSTP_2Acm8rAfhxLTYBg&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQtQMwAA]] Corporate Vehicles/Vans/buses/taxicabs can pick up employees/goods/utilities working/used in their regional offices from different parts of each respective region; this costs money,yes but not to the government. It creates jobs(pay van driver), adds profit to the motoring industry(buy van) and thus improves the economy. Mineral water companies drop off bottles and filters at different offices; they have their own transport they don't use public transportation.
Both major London terror attempts were associated with public places and public transport

Both attempts were averted. More than anything else, in these failed attempts (in London and N.Y.C respectively); civilian policing(a form of legal cooperative vigilante justice) has saved the day. Terrorists (by using smart bombs/weapons) can outsmart security checks even if expensive/better ones were to be put in place, but they can not outsmart old men who decide to chase them because they look fishy or pedestrians who report smoke coming out of a car on the street.
We need to prepare for London 2012 Olympics

The British government does not pay for the Olympics(funding is mostly derived from sponsors,advertising and tickets). The Olympics are run by an entirely privatised/privatized Olympic committee and funded by sponsors/advertising. If the O.D.A (the only government-related London 2012 Olympic organization) has concerns about security or transport it's their responsibility to pulverize these(as they'll be losing profit if people don't attend because of security or transport concerns) and they have provided thousands of temporary jobs involving construction and transport [[http://www.london2012.com/get-involved/jobs/jobs-at-the-oda/index.php]]; match that with 70,000 unpaid volunteers and there's nothing to worry about. [[http://www.london2012.com/get-involved/jobs/index.php]]