BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A free media should be just that, without a requirement for balance. The reporting of news is a vit...

The issue is not that networks are forced to report any one particular angle, but merely that they should present multiple perspectives when events are contested, for example by interviewing representatives from more than one political party. Many of those working within the media take a great pride in providing this balance, and those who don't are not prevented from expressing their opinions in other manners outside of their work. If opinions were being suppressed then it may be a case of unfreedom, but the requirement for balance is for more perspectives to be put forward. This is very different from limiting expression.
The CAP promotes divergence not solidarity

It may be seen as a positive that payments have shifted from the price support mechanism to the direct payment system, but this is causes trouble between Member States. Member States are being given increasing discretion over what requirements farmers need to comply with in order to potentially gain the 20% bonus on their previous years earnings. Some Member States may be more interested in animal welfare, some may be more interested in the environment and some may have a particular dislike for biological processes. This leads to varying levels of reimbursement among farmers in different countries and it creates hostility between Member States who are advocating for different purposes of the CAP. France and Ireland would be strong advocators of the CAP since they have a large agricultural sector whilst the UK would rather the system be scrapped as they, and other countries, pay more towards the CAP than they get out of it. Such divergent interests weakens the collective.
The market needs stability

Without subsidies for products such as sugar, dairy produce, and wine, farmers would be exposed to the price volatility of a global market. This could interfere with their ability to plan ahead and respond to consumer demand in the long term. In addition, with the average age of farmers in the EU increasing all the time, and numbers of new younger farmers entering the industry decreasing, the provision of EU subsidies is an attractive incentive. Farmers also have to deal with large and powerful supermarkets who can dictate lower prices, thereby forcing farmers to price their goods lower than is profitable.
Future EU Enlargement

The enlargement of the EU that is impending will result in more Baltic countries joining the EU. As their economy is largely based on agriculture we need to protect and sustain their interests, not lower the level of protection we give to EU farmers. It seems absurd to lower the budget to be spent on the CAP when more countries are entering the EU. If we keep the budget as it is, farmers will receive less anyway due to the same pot having to be shared between many more farmers.
The money could be spent elsewhere

There are now two pillars to the cap. Yes, the first pillar concentrates its resources into an agricultural direct payment plan whereby farmers are paid on the basis of past years payments in order to stabilise our self sufficiency in agricultural produce. But the second pillar is focused on rural development. After the Agenda 2000 agreement, Member States were to produce a 7 year rural development plan whereby money from the Common Agricultural Policy was be spent in rural area economies. This is a social welfare benefit and it ploughs money into rural economies which are normally segregated from city societies. Such benefit reduces the risk of over population in cities, people who live in rural areas will be able to make in living in the rural areas rather than feeling the need to relocate to a city. This helps the whole of society, not just farmers.
Market flexibility is stifled

Since the 2003 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, farmers' payments have been decoupled from production and now are based on past payments. This is no way should stifle the diversity of what they produce. The price support system has been gradually faded out over the last 10 years and Direct Payments have taken their place. Direct Payments are down to Member State competence and it is for them to decide how much to pay. They are to decide this depending on the level of gross compliance with environmental standards. This means that the CAP is now actually funding farmers to make their farms more environmentally friendly, not less. As discussed previously, rural economy development is sustained via the second CAP of the pillar.
The purpose of the original CAP has been achieved and is now redundant.

In the 40's there was a major depression and many European countries relied on their agricultural income and produce to achieve self sufficiency. For that reason in 1962 the CAP was introduced. Levies were put on exporters from countries outside the EC and farmers were encouraged to produce as much as they possibly could. In return, the CAP paid for any products which were not able to sell at the 'Intervention Price'; this was a politically set price which farmers would be compensated for if products were selling below this level. This lead to the EC being self sufficient in agricultural produce. However, the EU is now producing so much surplus that food is being dumped on world economy markets, or stored until the prices rise. Now we are self sufficient, there is no need for the CAP.
The current distribution is unfair.

The current distribution of CAP funds is unfair and unbalanced. Big farms get the bulk of the money, with the smaller farmers who are probably more in need of it getting comparatively little. For example 74% of CAP funds go to just 20% of European farmers while 70% of farmers share only 8% of the fund between them [[Q&A: Common Agricultural Policy, BBC News, 20 November 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4407792.stm%5D%5D It is also unfairly distributed between countries, for example Britain only gets 60% of the grants of Germany despite having similar levels of farm land and received a fifth less that Italy despite having a seventh more farmland. [[EU's Common Agricultural Policy costs British families £400, The Daily Record, 1st April 2009, http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-news/2009/04/01/eu-s-common-agricultural-policy-costs-british-families-400-86908-21244648/%5D%5D
Farmers can’t survive

Almost 75% of EU farmers run small farms with a turnover of less than £5,000 per year [[www.civitas.org.uk]]. Without agricultural subsidies, many of these farms would cease to be profitable, and the rural communities they support would struggle to survive. Most farms are small businesses, with time consuming and labour intensive operations, which return very small profits. Taking away EU agricultural subsidies, which are reliable source of finance, could prove to be the final nail in the coffin for many farms, especially those in remote areas..
It’s not just about farming

Farmers have a vital and increasing role to play in protection of the rural environment, and preservation of the countryside. This is a very important function of the Common Agricultural Policy, as over half the EU population lives in rural areas. Since 1995 the EU has provided rural development aid, to encourage farmers to diversify their activities, and become more competitive. Maintaining the biodiversity and traditional image of the countryside which citizens have come to expect, especially in more remote parts of the UK, is a worthwhile endeavour, but one that requires funding if it is to be carried out to high environmental standards. Farmers also make an important contribution to addressing the challenges of climate change and through their agricultural activity.
Developing countries can't compete

Because of subsidies to EU farmers, farmers in developing countries such as in Africa are unable to sell their products to EU countries at competitive prices. The WTO has reported that developing countries complain about the high tariffs they face when exporting to developed countries, which prevents the expansion of production, which would lead to an increase in prosperity for much larger rural populations in African countries. EU farmers, whose agricultural products are subsidised, are protected from this outside competition. This represents a major setback for the developing world. Liberalisation of trade between the EU and developing countries could arguably be more valuable than western aid to the developing world.
The money could be spent elsewhere

The EU also commits a large proportion of its budget to structural funding, which is given to the poorer regions of the EU, whose GDP is more than 75% below the EU average. EU money could be used more effectively in these areas, as more citizens would benefit than benefit from agricultural spending. The EU also needs to commit a larger proportion of its budget to meeting the goals of the Lisbon agenda, which aims to make the EU the most competitive knowledge economy in the world. Both of these uses would benefit more citizens than the relative minority who receive agricultural funding. In addition, during the global recession, it is likely that EU member states will not wish to commit more of their own GDPs to the EU budget, so available funds must be used more creatively.
Market flexibility is stifled

The Common Agricultural Policy discourages farmers from responding flexibly to consumer demand by growing produce which is more profitable. Farmers are still subsidised for producing some agricultural goods, such as sugar and dairy produce, so that they have no incentive to diversify their production. This results in artificially high food prices. An unsubsidised, free market, would allocate resources to the most profitable produce, and would also allow farmers to focus on other aspects of the rural economy, such as environmental protection, agricultural and eco tourism, and production of biofuels.
The Champions League is financially more rewarding

Although it would be impossible to argue against the statistics there are other factors to take into consideration. Since the new rule changes, winning the Champions League does not automatically guarantee you a place in the next tournament. A top four place in the Premier League does however. In the long term teams wish to be competing in the tournament every year in order to reap the rewards of playing in it. They must therefore ensure that they are focussing on performing well in the Premier League.
Champions league 2012 final

As the champions league final has ever been, this year it's gonna be a wonderful game, cause both teams will fight for any chance to get the title. As the host, Bayen Munich seems to have little bit more chance to win and also cause Bayen and Germany havnt win the CL since 2001, but Chelsea wont let this chance go to obtain its first title. Since 1992, Milan, Barcelona and Real Madrid dominated the game, but also Bayren Munich won once and reached the final twice, while chelsea did once. List of the <a href="http://www.sigmafoot.com/foot/uefa/champions-league/193-uefa-champions-league-winners-by-club">UEFA Champions league winners</a>
Winning the Champions League relies more on luck than the Premier League

To win the Premier League a team must display a large amount of skill and perform to a consistently high standard throughout the entire course of the season. By its very nature of being a knockout tournament, the Champions League has a greater element of luck involved. A draw decides which teams will have to be faced in the group stages and later on in the later rounds. Knockout rounds may often have to be decided by penalties, a method which is far less representative of a team’s ability than normal play. The draw may mean that one particular team may get a lucky run of easier opponents through to the final. Hence the overall winners may not actually be the best team in Europe.
Being the best in Europe beats being the best in England

The UEFA Champions League comprises of the league champions of all UEFA member associations, as well as those clubs finishing from second to fourth place in the strongest leagues. This means that the competition includes the very best teams from across the whole of Europe, and also the top four clubs from the Premier League. By winning the Champions League you have proven to be better than not only your fellow domestic teams but also the other European greats. The title of Champions of Europe is therefore highly superior to the title of Champions of England.
The Champions League is financially more rewarding

From a purely financial perspective we can compare the breakdowns in revenue earned from successfully winning each competition: By winning the Premier League a club would net £9.7m in prize money. The club would have also received £8.9m for being in the league, £340,000 or £250,000 for each live Sky game of which there are 38 (dependent on timing and whether pay-per-view game) and overseas TV, sponsorship and licensing money equating to around £4.02m. So in total the Premier League champions would gain in the region of £34m. Any team successfully getting through the group stages and knockout matches to reach the Champions League final and then go on to win the competition would have earned a colossal prize fund of 40m Euros including television revenues. If gate receipts and sponsorship are incorporated then that figure rises to approximately 100m Euros or £78m. This amount is far greater than that of the Premier League. We must also bear in mind that a win in Europe may have knock on effects and bring in money indirectly through tourism or merchandise sales.
Fans do not have the pleasure of "getting one over" on their domestic rivals

This year’s Champions League provides a big example of why this point holds little credibility. The semi-finals comprised of three English teams and we are now in the position where the final is between Manchester United and Chelsea; two huge English rivals. The European games provide fans with just as much excitement and rivalry. Also, in our ever increasingly cosmopolitan society we now have fans of all European teams living within England. Therefore supporters of all teams have the ability to integrate anyway.
The Premiership is the most popular and successful football league in the world

Since the inaugural season of 1992 the English Premier league has grown into the global success story that it is today. It is easily the most popular soccer league in the world, attracting fans from every country. It is no wonder that it is promoted as the “Greatest Show on Earth” when it is followed by over half a billion people in 202 countries. It has attracted many of the world’s most talented players and consistently produces top-class teams. This is extremely evident by the fact that English teams made up three of the last four places in this year’s UEFA Champions League. Not only this, but the Premiership is also hugely successful financially. In the 2005-06 season the Premiership generated revenues of over £1.4billion, a figure that is 40% higher than its nearest rival, the Italian Serie A. Only three major sports leagues can better this, namely America’s NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball. As such, teams have a large incentive to win such a popular title.
Fans do not have the pleasure of "getting one over" on their domestic rivals

Beating teams in Europe just isn’t the same as beating a team in the Premiership. The domestic league is full of derbies between local teams, each match providing a great supporting occasion for the fans. Fans get more satisfaction out of beating a fellow English rival, as they have more of an opportunity to revel in their opposing fans’ misfortune. Supporters enjoy the friendly banter between opposing fans, and can experience this with domestic league wins.
European champions are remembered far more than their domestic counterparts

Winning the Premier League is a massive achievement for any club, but when we compare these triumphs to an epic victory in the Champions League Final it becomes quite apparent that Premier League titles are forgotten much more readily. This rift is also evident when we look at the widely known clubs in Europe. Teams like AC Milan and Ajax have not shot to great prominence as a result of their performances in their respective domestic leagues, but as a result of European glory.
The top club managers have huge desire to win the Champions League

The top English team managers and players all want to win the Champions League. They will often view it as the crowning glory to their club career, the highest accolade that their club can win. Sir Alex Ferguson has already won the European Cup with Manchester United in 1999 but has been on record saying that for him to truly earn his place among the greats he would need to win it for a second time. Arsenal’s Arsene Wenger is desperate to win the Champions League. He has won every other cup with his team, the Premiership title, the FA Cup and the Community Shield, but it is this one title that still eludes him. When Liverpool won in 2005 Steven Gerrard described the occasion as the “best day of his career”. It is truly a huge aspiration for all players and managers.
The Premier League is tougher to win because of its length

With all due respect just because a competition may not have as many rounds doesn't mean it isn't any less tough.In the Premier League ,there is a possibility for teams to rally from a bad start. that possibility exists only in a limited form in the group stage of the champions league. What's more as the competition progresses the Champions League could be argued be tougher as it tests a teams performance at various pressure points through out the season meaning that the depth of a squad's skill and consistency can be tested even more than the premier league
Authorities: politicians/scientists/experts/etc should be questioned and not trusted blindly because there is no suh thing as a pefect authority in any area or subject

Your conclusion stated that ... because authorities are not perfect they should be questioned. This however does not follow, if authorities are not perfect then we should question whether they are an authority in their field or question whether they should be an authority. I feel that all authorites are imperfect yet this should not be the sole reason to question them, do you doubt or question an imperfect circle because of its imperfection? or do you question it because of the message it tells you, its telling you a lie... i.e. that circles are not perfect (regular) this circle would be an elipsiss. We should question authority only on the grounds that the message or information they give is not true or could be made truer, a crazy, mad angry scientist could present an ir-refutable theory , yet by your reasoning which should question the speaker not the things they say. We should then, only question that which is fallible and that which could be improved. We should question what the authorities say, not what they are.
Authorities: politicians/scientists/experts/etc should be questioned and not trusted blindly because there is no suh thing as a pefect authority in any area or subject

Authorities: politicians/scientists/experts/etc should be questioned and not trusted blindly because there is no such* thing as a perfect* authority in any area or subject: Every subject/issue is drenched in opinions/on-the-other-hands; authorities wish to be seen as perfect 'authorities': people who have all the answers. They have a tendency to exploit their position by representing their own subjective/untested opinions/ideas/passions/lineages as fact. And therefore should be scrutinized(get second opinions when visiting a doctor; listen to both sides of an argument et cetera).
We are fallible

There are no absolute truths i.e. no truth that cannot hold some extent of doubt or no truth that everyone ascends to. For example, imagine einstein one of the most acclaimed physicists in his field. He proposed that quantum mechanics was wrong period, and yet to his day many question his authority in physics and on quantum mechanics. Also in more everyday terms, the mother can be wrong about whether you should go to school one day when your ill, she may send you to school, should you do so without questioning the mother? no because one she might not realise another perspective and you may come to the right conclusion. Also by questioning authorities we can improve them, i.e. Einstein could not have improved his unification theory of everything if he was not questioned, if the mother was not questioned then she and the son will not do whats best on these situations, by questioning authority we enable debate and we enable a rational insight into the best conclusion. It is the most essential 'should' in humanity, for rebellion, controversy etc. are at the heart of human progression. By not questioing and doubting mainstream views we never get a chance to reflect on whether these veiws are the best or not and , if we do not question we end up staying in the same place. By questioing we do not bring bad effects, what are the cons of curious questioning? and do these outweigh the positives i have just mentioned? Conclusion: We should questioin authority on almost every issue.
Authority

If we believe ALL authorities are corrupt, then what's the point of having authority? It is true we have made mistakes in the past, but if we don't take these risks our nation would be a mess. There is a reason we have debates before elections for president. We don't blindly choose who gets to be on top. Their reasons will appeal to us and if we made a mistake we can bring him down. How can we bring him down? Because the leaders before them were smart enough to realize a situation like Hitler's might happen again and decided to prevent it in the future. Authority is authority. They are chosen by us to be authority and we have no right to question who WE thought would do the job well.
To much information doesn't get heard.

Questioning authority equates to getting answers thus information from authority. Yes; once authority is questioned, people in authority are on their toes; that is careful not to do things that are questionable. Or at least (the thing I'm assuming you're tugging at; since I can't make the 'read-stuff-question'-connection) make an effort to hide/cover-up questionable activities. But Assuming that authority was not questioned/kept-in-check/accountable, then it will be hypothetically all-revealing(though this is not necessary since leaders will/did have the choice to be 'above' sharing information as it will-have/had no consequence/meaning to the public) then we'd have a repetition of the 'divine rule of kings'/rulers-above-the-law. Even with free-flowing information since authority will not be questionable/bounded-by-law; any shared political information will-be/was useless.
Good development should ensures freedom

There is a tautology in the premise of this argument that if validated would render this debate barren. If we agreed on the fact that representation and “people deciding what is best for them” are part of development then there is no way for dictatorship to win as the best path to development. Furthermore, If freedom were to be the sole end of development, then what would a citizen be free to do? At the very start of the debate we defined development as human well-being(which incorporates education, health, income, and safety from internal and external threats)and even by personal discipline. Development, once achieved, may give the necessary leap to democracy and freedom, in that sense at the end of development; once achieved there can be space for freedom, noticeably South Korea and Taiwan’s transition to democracy after decades of growth under dictatorship prove our point. ( Schaeffer, Robert K. Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change [[http://books.google.co.ve/books?id=bSTqbu7dWSYC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=CHIANG+DICTATORSHIP+in+Taiwan&source=bl&ots=LaDTTxgoi_&sig=_xZFRUyrMXbUIzveLOBDLyFZ-uQ&hl=es&ei=m3mESofRLor-M_7KpdwL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false)]]