BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National “feel-good factor”

Hosting very large sporting events is a great way to advertise a nation, and create a national feel-good factor. When London hosted the games in 2012, a successful event with a successful home team, there was a significant national “feel good factor”[1]. This can bring the benefit of bringing a nation together; particularly important for multi-ethnic countries such as South Africa, it will bring all ethnicities together in a shared experience helping to justify the label of ‘rainbow nation’. As Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula argues “Sport is said to be a national religion in South Africa. In recent years it transcends race, class, language and geographical location.”[2] [1] Hart, Simon, ‘Feelgood factor at London’s Anniversary Games next weekend as a new start for drug-tainted athletics’, The Telegraph, 20 July 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10192473/Feelgood-factor-at-Londons-Anniversary-Games-next-weekend-seen-as-a-new-start-for-drug-tainted-athletics.html [2] Mabalula, Fikile, ‘South Africa: Remarks By the Minister of Sport and Recreation, Honourable Mr Fikile Mbalula At the National Press Club Briefing On the 2013 Afcon At the Csir International Convention Centre’, AllAfrica, 16 January 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201301170342.html?page=3
Hosting only affects one city and one country

Unlike a World Cup, which spreads the benefits more evenly, an Olympic games is focused on one city, generally one which is a major international city. It was expected prior to the games that 90% of economic benefits to the UK of the 2012 games would go to London[1]. It is dubious that there would be such big benefits for the continent. South Africa is seen by some in the outside world as somewhat aloof from the rest of Africa due to its particular history, its history of apartheid being rather different from the normal course of African decolonisation. It is doubtful that the 2010 World Cup boosted perceptions of the entire continent. [1] Grobel, William, ‘What are the London 2012 Olympics worth?’, Brand Valuation News, April 2010, http://www.intangiblebusiness.com/Brand-Services/Marketing-services/Press-coverage/What-are-the-London-2012-Olympics-worth~3072.html
Cost of hosting

The Olympic games is an expensive thing to host. The 2012 games in London cost nearly £9bn[1]. This cost largely falls on the taxpayer. These large events are notoriously difficult to budget accurately, the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics having gone vastly over budget with suggestions that it could cost up to $50 billion[2]. It is too expensive to host for rich countries as it is – South Africa has a large problem with wealth inequality as it is, and is below the world average GDP per capita[3]. Although it is unlikely to reach such expense the $50 billion for the Sochi Olympics is twice the yearly South African health budget of ZAR 232.5bn.[4] South Africa would be better served using the money to combat HIV and poverty. [1] Gibson, Owen, ‘London 2012 Olympics will cost a total of £8.921bn, says minister’, The Guardian, 23 October 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/oct/23/london-2012-olympics-cost-total [2] Kollmeyer, Barbara, ‘Russia’s in-perspective price tag for four-times-overbudget Sochi Olympics: 18 Oprahs’, Marketwatch, 27 November 2013, http://blogs.marketwatch.com/themargin/2013/11/27/russias-in-perspective-price-tag-for-four-times-overbudget-sochi-olympics-18-oprahs/ [3] The World Bank, ‘GDP per capital, PPP (current international $)’, date.worldbank.org, accessed 24 January 2014, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc [4] ‘Budget 2013’, PWC, 27 February 2013, http://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/budget-speech-summary-2013.pdf
The Olympics are not South Africa’s ‘national sport’

South Africa in part hosted the World Cup because football is the national sport of the country. Sports Minister Fikile Mabalula has declared “In African popularity, the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) surpasses even that of a multi-sports event like the All Africa Games.”[1] While there is football in the Olympics other sports that South Africans support such as Rugby are not represented. In the 2012 Olympics South Africa was well down the medal table at 23rd.[2] While it makes sense to make a big investment for intangible benefits for a sport the country loves it makes less sense for the Olympics. [1] Mabalula, 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201301170342.html?page=2 [2] ‘Medal Table’, BBC Sport, 13 August 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/2012/medals/countries
Showcase for a nation and continent

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best.[1] Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries. [1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5
Economic benefits

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006[1]. Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event[2]. [1] Davenport, 2004 [2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home
National “feel-good factor”

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.
Hosting only affects one city and one country

Some Olympic events are held outside the main city. The football tournament uses venues across other cities (in the London 2012 games, Coventry, Cardiff and Manchester were amongst the cities hosting matches), and, being landlocked, Johannesburg would have to host the sailing at another venue. Sailing being held in another city is not unusual, in 2012 the sailing was held in Weymouth and in 2008 in Qingdao. Training camps are typically held across the whole nation, too. The national morale boost typically permeates far wider than just the host city, including the impact in favour of a more sporting culture in the country.
India has a specific need to main social cohesion

The problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority.  Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny.  Secondly it is a recipe for social stagnation; if the state acts to prevent anyone from encountering views that they disagree with or might find disturbing then their view will never change and the state will find itself forever trapped in a paradigm of conflict and stagnation.
India has a specific need to main social cohesion

India’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory.  There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan. In this context, India’s leaders have a special reason to pay attention to the sensibilities of their minority populations.  If allowing the publication of The Satanic Verses would result in social unrest then on the balance of harms it is a rational choice to make a limited restriction on freedom of speech rather than see potential millions having their property and lives threatened.
Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right

Freedom of Speech is but one right amongst many, including freedom of religion, and they are not intrinsically ranked against each other.  The right of people to have and hold religious views without having those views demonised or insulted is a right that might easily be considered just as important. Moreover the West is often hypocritical with how it defines the right to free speech – Western countries often restrict incitement to violence or speech which is insulting to individuals, or even just when that speech is against the national interest (such as with official secrets).  If it is legitimate to use state institutions such as the courts to protect individuals from insults, why is it illegitimate to use state institutions to protect religions from insults?
Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right

Freedom of speech and expression exists in any modern list of human rights.  It is a fundamental right that is necessary for any society to function properly and for individuals to achieve happiness and fulfilment in their lives. ‘Hurt and outrage’ are false harms – nobody suffers any damage from being exposed to an opposing view other than what they choose to suffer based on how close-minded they are.  On the contrary, everybody has a chance to benefit when they are exposed to a foreign view or opinion, whether it be by changing their own view or being able to re-affirm their existing view in a new way.
Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:

The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate. 1 Legal Alert. 2009. "PRO-IP Act Promises Increased Focus on IP Rights and Expanded Counterfeiting Remedies". Sutherland. 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property". improve this
Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining

While there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights.  1Intellectual Property Office, How much does it cost? 2Inventors Digest, Patent Office Unveils New, Bigger Budget, 2011 improve this
Intellectual property rights incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products

When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product, or writing a new song, people put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries’ investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The 2000 largest global companies invest more than €430 billion a year in researching new products1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment, which is why countries with less robust intellectual property rights schemes are not home to research and development firms. Without the protection of intellectual property rights, new inventions lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the invention and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Furthermore, intellectual property is particularly important to firms with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, or with low reverse engineering costs, such as computer, software, and pharmaceutical firms. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea2. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished. Within a robust intellectual property rights system, firms and individuals compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to “invent around” one another’s patents, leading to gradual improvements in technologies, benefiting consumers. Clearly, intellectual property is essential for a dynamic, progressive business world. 1Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. 2009. “The 2009 EU Industrial R&D Investment Socreboard”. Economics of Industrial Research and Innovation 2Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529. improve this
Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products

There is no significant slowing down of the spread of information in the long run, since intellectual property generally only lasts for a short time, meaning owners have an incentive to make the most of it while they can. Besides, any small slowing down of the spread of ideas and innovations is a small price to pay for the recognition of a person's fundamental right to the product of his effort. Furthermore, licensing arrangements are becoming more and more refined to allow for the quick transfer of rights in order to meet societal demands for products. Licensing law has also begun to extend to products that producers may not wish to produce, such as medication for sick Africans, and is helping to force firms that refuse to act upon their patents to license the right to those that will. improve this
Intellectual property rights allow individuals to release their inventions into the public domain

Without the protection of intellectual property, artists, inventors, and innovators may develop ideas without ever releasing them to the public because they lack the ability to market them successfully, or to profit by their endeavours. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. The recognition of intellectual property rights encourages the release of ideas, inventions, and art to be released to the public, which serves to benefit society generally. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas and inventions to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the intellectual property right expires1. If the idea never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset. 1 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line. improve this
Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:

The cost of research and development of new products is often extremely high for firms. In order to reap a profit from their efforts, they must be able to count on the guarantee of ownership over their intellectual property. In the absence of such a guarantee, the incentive of firms to research and innovate declines substantially, resulting in a less dynamic business climate. The duplication of effort by research firms is rare in practice, and the efforts to develop spin-off products can easily become the beginning of entirely new inventive projects. improve this
There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:

Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform" improve this
The product of an individual's intellectual endeavour is the property of that individual, who deserves to profit from it

No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavour. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it. improve this
The salable and conferrable nature of intellectual property allows for the efficient and just distribution of ideas

It is no more just that an individual's family benefit from a monopoly over an idea, than the individual who created it. There remains no inherent right to an idea. As for the sale of patents and licenses, firms will waste precious resources in fighting amongst each other for monopoly control over intellectual property, and will even buy the rights to products with no intention of using them, planning simply to prevent any competitors from doing so. The most efficient system is to have ideas be public and accessible and usable by everyone. When they are, more innovation will occur. improve this
Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products

An individual or firm with a monopoly right to the production of something may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Intellectual property rights slow, or even stop the dissemination of such ideas and inventions, as it may prove impossible to sway the creator to license or to market the product. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with the free sharing of ideas, an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public1. A similar harm arises from the enervating effect intellectual property rights can generate in people and firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting to for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of intellectual property, firms and individuals are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of intellectual property rights will invigorate economic dynamism. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent ideas do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves do to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for predominantly developing world diseases, which exist but are unprofitable to distribute to where they are needed most, in part of Africa and Asia.2 With no intellectual property rights, the access to such drugs would be facilitated and producers interested in helping the sick rather than simply profiting would be able to help those in need left to die due to intellectual property. 1 Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 2 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'".The Guardian. improve this
Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:

Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation. improve this