BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Increase in forced abortions, female infanticide, and gender imbalance

All these three 1) forced abortion, 2) female infanticide, 3) gender imbalance should be made cognizable offences. Only and only vasectomy of all males who have 1 child or more should be made law. It should be enforced strictly. There will be no problem. All the problems will be resolved. World will become one and peaceful. No passport no visa no border no war no conflict an ideally peaceful, prosperous and happy world will be the absolute result which all of mankind will get. Thank you for making such a nice website.
Social problems are created by a population of only children

Children have a right to be treated as Emperors. Not like Afghan and Pashtun children who are produced in dozens, then sold in market to Taliban and Nato by the same father getting money from both sides and purchasing another girl of 15 years to produce more soldiers. One Afghan or Pashtun have even 30 children or so. Against 200 dollars you can buy a suicide bomber who to serve his family is ready to give his life but his father has no shame. They sell their boys and girls too. This is the main crop they produce in too much quantity. After 30 years of 1 child policy 2 can be allowed. The too many produced children live without food, water, clothing, homes, medicines. It is the most heinous crime against humanity to produce many children irresponsibly and to be an irresponsible parent.
Just do the math

Every where there is bloody conflict, tragedy of wars, killings, hunger, poverty, homelessness, diseases, shantytowns, infighting, miseries,the reason behind is nothing else but population explosion. Too many children. Too many children fight with each other, kill each other and kill others too. 1 child policy is the only solution. For a specific period of 30 years in the whole 3rd world and there will be no more third world. The whole world will become first world. I agree rather believe that only and only 1 child policy can reduce the misery to the minimum level. Look at Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Male, Palestine, the basic reason of the conflict, misery and fight is too many children per woman. The mothers of these areas lure and recite rhymes to their infant babies to kill and be killed when their children would grow. Is this the future of mankind. Most of the Afghan, Pathan, Sudanese, Rwandan, Somalian, Palestinian women bear 10 to 15 children even more in many cases. These children fight all the time with each other. They kill each other. They kill others too. They are killed by others too. They live a life of misery. If 1 child policy is adopted in Palestine and Israel too, the Israelis and Palestinians will start loving each others children like their own and the conflict will vanish away. The same will happen in every conflicting area. If uncontrolled birth is allowed, the offspring of one parent will make nuclear bombs to kill their own brothers and sisters. SAVE HUMANITY, SAVE MANKIND, ADOPT 1 CHILD POLICY AND MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD PEACEFUL.
Exponential population growth rate and civilisation collapse

Admittedly I'm not sure how you would enforce such a system, it does have its advantages. With the exponential growth in the human population over the last 50 years or so, we have seen an increase in poverty levels and a greater strain on the earths resources. If we continue this trend of population growth, there will be a point when we reach and exceed the earths capacity (in terms of resource and space). Once this happens we will be on a global path to civilisation collapse as we fight over the remaining resources (Iraq) and as our levels of food can't feed ourselves. With the one child policy, we can make sure that we get the earth's population under control (to a degree). But like I said, I'm not sure how you could enforce this without infringing basic human rights.
Where will this then end...

It will start with a one child policy...and then does that mean you have to be steralised once you've had one child? What if the child passes away, then you have no chance of having another...so that means no steralisation...but what if birth control fails and you accidently fall pregnant again...does that mean you have to abort the child?? Which is against the core beliefs of many cultures and religions. The one child policy might work in theory but in practice it's much too dictatorship like; the only reason it works so well in China is because of the fact that China is able to control the movement and the actions of its inhabitants...In Western society however there would be a huge uproar as the one-child policy over here would mean an end to freedom of choice etc. Its just not going to happen.
The punishment for failing to follow the rules would infringe on women's right to control their own bodies.

Unplanned pregnancies happen. They happen with IUD's and with birth control pills. Many women, including pro-choice women, strongly believe that abortion would be committing a murder. Forcing abortion on such women would be a violation of their body and their values. Further, if you tax families that have more than one child, you're essentially punishing the child for the sins of the parent. (i.e. you're lowering their standard of living as punishment for being born.) That hardly seems fair. Allow society to have unlimited access to reliable birth control. Encourage women to go to college and have careers. We've already seen negative population growth in countries that follow that type of policy. Japan can't get her people to reproduce enough to sustain their economy. The same holds true for many European countries. There's no need to violate people's right to their very body in order to control human population. Social factors already serve as a regulating force.
The dangers of an aging population

One of the long-term consequences of any sudden and enforced reduction in birth rates will be the creation of an enormous group of dependent and elderly citizens who will pose a burden to younger generations. As China is currently experiencing, a relatively small population of post-policy 'only children' will form the economically active group whose task is to maintain the much larger group of elderly pre-policy multiple children. As China continues to grow economically while its life expectancy rises, the pressure placed on the only children will increase and young people may find themselves supporting many more of their aged parents and grandparents. So long as population is cut in such a dramatic way, any nation which implements the policy needs to be fully prepared for the demographic and economic consequences.
Increase in forced abortions, female infanticide, and gender imbalance

China as a test case for the one child policy has shown high levels of forced abortions and female infanticide. China as in many countries around the world place higher value on boys in society (possibly due to rural families need for a son to assist in farmwork). This has led to high levels of female infanticide due to families preference to have a boy as their one child. It is common in China for new born baby girls to be left abandoned in the street. This is believed to attribute to China's extreme population gender imbalance. This is not to say this would occur globally but would certainly affect gender balance. This ofcourse leading to problems in later life when males seek wives. The lack of women in China is thought to be the cause of many kidnappings of women from countries bordering China.
Corporations support our living standards and ensure democracy and human rights are STRONGER, not WEAKER!

Capitalist society - that is, a society based on free trade rather than coercion - has existed before corporations. Corporations were merely an addition to free-trade-based society, that gave investors the comfort of capping their personal losses in case of bankruptcy, thereby encouraging investment. This capping of risk may now be unnecessary, and indeed harmful, as the risk-spreading measures of Credit Default Swaps and securitized mortgages have shown by evaporating trillions of dollars in value in the last crisis. At any rate, abolishing corporations has nothing to do with abolishing free trade. Jobs can be granted by unlimited-liability companies, partnerships and individuals. Calling "Socialism" won't win this debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a counter to the argument to the left. North Korea is an absolute totalitarian dictatorship. It is a failure of communism in its essence and cannot be held accountable for the whole system! You are judging the many based on the few! Socialism is an often misused term. It is normally a functioning element of proper democracy. Denmark is socialist. France is socialist. Even my own US has socialist elements! You say human rights are infringed in a socialist system? Do France, Denmark, Canada, Luxembourg, or Sweden have an even remotely unfair human rights system? No! Corporations are greedy and currupt. They provide jobs, but so does the military, the oil companies, the tobacco companies, Walmart, etc.! I'm sure you are aware that the tobacco companies have fooled people many times before, regardless of human rights!!! Or is lung cancer worth it just so people can have a minimum wage job? For hundreds of years, people had subsisted of of local businesses that provided everything they needed. Then, corporations bought those local businesses, and converted "Ted's Grocery" to Über-Mega-Super-Intense Wal-mart!!! This to me is a blatant threat to democracy. Imagine corporations (as they do in eastern europe and central america) paying off the government to not enforce labor and minimum wage laws. Thanks. I'm having a really hard time understanding why you say outlawing corporations means automatically having socialism. Haven't you heard of a family owned and operated business? The corporate business model is relatively new and ugly. Corporations care about stockholders. Businesses owned by business owners care about building a strong company--not shareholders. They tend to focus on building a strong sense of family and well-being in their employees. Your argument that getting rid of corporations = socialism is confusing and poorly articulated.
Without limited lliability, innovation is in bad shape

Corporations give people with new ideas the ability to try without risking everything they have - by placing only their investment in the corporation at risk. Before corporation, a failed idea could cost an enterpreneur his entire assets, financial freedom and sometimes physical freedom. Innovators were employed by nobelty, which was in short supply, and innovation crawled along slowly while Humanity suffers through hard winters. Now that hundreds of thousands of corporations allow innovators to try with limited risk, innovation moves at dazzling pace, and so are standards of living.
Corporations are by their nature amoral actors in society

This presupposes that corporations can act in a manner that is unrestrained by law, commercial forces and public opinion. The law of tort restrains companies from being able to inflict unrestricted damages on people. For example, parties injured by cars and drugs are able to sue the corporations who manufacture these products. The ability of companies to "up sticks" is a call for greater international co-operation to take a strong stand on employment and environmental issues, not for dissolving the companies which contribute vast amounts to national economies.
Corporations support our living standards and ensure democracy and human rights are STRONGER, not WEAKER!

We live in a capitalist democracy - without corporations we would be socialist - a system which undermines human rights, is less likely to give us the standard of living we are accustomed to, and would be foolish when we look at historical examples of capitalist countries turning to socialism. Corporations employ people and allow us to live well. And we have a social safety net to pick us up when we fall. Get rid of corporations and you get rid of our high standard of living and destroy our economy. The idea that they are a threat to democracy is absurd because without corporations we would be socialist - we all know how well North Korea is performing on human rights, now don't we?!
Corporations are by their nature amoral actors in society

Citizens must have power over corporations because, by their nature, they act like psychopathic people. Corporations are amoral; they act purely for their own gratification without consideration for society, without empathy for people and without remorse for the consequences of their actions on others (see, Joel Bakan, The Corporation). All individuals and bodies are supposed to be equal under the law, but the executives of Corporations, in their effort to maximise the dividend to their shareholders (and thus keep their own position secure), wield the power and influence of their companies to effect the legal and socio-political environment of a country to meet their needs rather than develop the fundamentals of the business itself. Thus Unionisation is either legislated out of existence, or emasculated, sometimes in breach of acknowledged principals of Human Rights. Where a corporation finds the situation in a country uncomfortable it is quite happy to ‘up sticks’ from that country. According to the BBC’s Analysis programme, even China can allegedly be cowed by the power of Corporations. It seems that the Chinese hierarchy realises that the country has a pollution problem but does not want to apply legislation restricting corporate pollution for fear of these companies moving to Vietnam, and the greater freedom to pollute there.
Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...

Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.
Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ...

There is no doubt that poverty is a serious issue in the world today and that a solution is needed. Debt relief, however, has so far proven to be fairly inefficient in terms of getting countries back on the road to development. In fact, most countries whose debt has been forgiven have not managed to escape the cycle of poverty. Debt relief alone will not be a solution in desperate situations where corruption, totalitarian governments and criminal gangs rule. It is better when natural disasters occur to provide short-term humanitarian assistance in the form of emergency supplies, specialist teams and money for rebuilding. Unlike debt relief, such aid can be focused on areas in real need and monitored to ensure it reaches those suffering in the disaster zone.
Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo...

We need to keep in mind the fact that the need for debt relief is looked upon as a threat of bankruptcy. This means countries that are desperate enough to seek debt relief after a disaster may in future be seen as bad credit risks, and become unable to receive the loans they need in order to rebuild for the long-term after a natural disaster. It is also unclear what qualifies as a “natural disaster”. Earthquakes, hurricanes and tidal waves may be sudden and unpredictable, but as much or even more damage can be done by disease outbreaks such as AIDS, SARS or Avian ‘Flu, or by famine caused by crop failure. And why do disasters have to be “natural” to justify debt relief? What about countries affected by man-made disasters such as war? Tanzania and Chad have both suffered hugely from coping with massive refugee inflows following violence in neighbouring states (Rwanda and Sudan respectively).
Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis...

While it is true that debt payments place a serious burden on governments, one also needs to consider what kind of governments are talking about. Because current debt-relief programmes such as the HIPC scheme are already rewarding countries for good governance, some of the poorest states will in future have little debt to forgive in the event of a natural disaster. Only those which refuse to meet international norms for governance and human rights are keeping their debts and so will be in line for debt-forgiveness after a future mass tragedy. Sadly, in many cases these have governments that are involved in civil wars, killing their own populations as well as others; they are governments that waste most of the aid that comes into their countries; governments that use development funds to feed their own foreign bank accounts; and governments that engage in serious human rights violations. Forgiving the debts of such states will do nothing for those struck by disaster and will make a mockery of the existing debt relief schemes.
This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channe...

Where would you draw the line? The proposition seems to assume that only developing countries suffer from natural disasters, and so require debt relief. In fact, natural disasters can strike a wide range of countries and it is not clear if your scheme would not also apply to middle-income or even rich states. In recent years the United States has been struck by several devastating hurricanes, and many people believe an enormous Californian earthquake is overdue. Given the huge foreign debts of the US government, why shouldn’t it apply for debt relief too in such situations? And what about Japan, for example after the Kobe earthquake? After all, given the much greater physical infrastructure of such countries compared to developing ones, the cost of damage done by a similar natural disaster will be very much higher.
As IMF debt relief has been perceived to be fairly controversial, particularly given the economic an...

The UN is not a loan giver and thus should not have much of a say in debt relief. Loan givers such as the IMF and the World Bank have long-term economic and political interests that could easily be wrecked by UN decisions. For example, the World Bank needs to produce a return on its loans in order to generate income which can then be lent cheaply to poor countries in desperate need of investment capital. If the UN scrapped some of the World Bank’s loans, other developing countries would suffer from the loss of cheap credit for development.\ Even if it were to oversee these interests, a complete UN reform would be needed, transforming it into a bank-like institution – something that might not be desirable. The UN does not have a good track record in managing money and does not have the necessary international legitimacy needed to support such a plan. While the IMF and the World Bank may not be popular institutions, they certainly are well trusted in terms of their ability to pay up or forgive loans.
Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...

While powerful countries that support the IMF and the World Bank are certainly much wealthier than the world’s poorest countries, the amount of debt that we are talking about is still extremely large. Even though lenders try to spread their risk, natural disasters often affect more than one country (e.g. Caribbean hurricanes, the Asian tsunami) and so debt-relief could be demanded for a number of states simultaneously, making it unaffordable. Regional lenders (e.g. the African Development Bank) rightly specialise in a particular part of the world where they can bring expertise to bear; they could be wiped out if many of their loans were cancelled after a regional disaster. In addition, existing debt-relief schemes have been negotiated over very long period. This means countries, banks and multilateral institutions have had years to prepare their balance sheets for the losses write-offs involve. Sudden debt-relief following a natural disaster would be much more destabilising.
Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ...

Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get back on the road to economic development. Without debt relief, the cycle of poverty, disease and corruption would continue and possibly spread to other parts of the world. Debt relief is particularly needed in countries affected by natural disasters, where much of the aid is focused on solving immediate concerns as opposed to getting the economy back on track. Not only do they desperately need more money to cope with the disaster, but the economic impact of the tragedy reduces their ability to service their loans anyway. What is the point of the developed world promising hundreds of millions of dollars in post-Tsunami aid, if they then take away much more money each year in debt charges?
Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo...

Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poor countries to spend their revenues unwisely in the expectation that creditor nations will wipe out their debts if they get into trouble. Debt relief for countries affected by natural disasters is different, as by their very nature such events are unpredictable and cannot be planned for. Instead the possibility of such assistance in the event of an earthquake, tidal wave, or other disaster makes it more possible for developing states to plan ahead and invest wisely for the future.
Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis...

Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis or hurricanes are rare and unpredictable. Existing debt-reduction programmes take a long-term approach, but years of good policy and improving governance can be totally wrecked by one event. People who have the misfortune to live in badly-run or totalitarian states still deserve our help when disaster strikes. Debt-relief is one way for the international community to make sure they are not oppressed from without (by debt charges) as well as from within.
This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channe...

This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channel money to rich nations even if disaster strikes them too. The key difference is the ability of the country to cope with the situation. The US (or Japan) may have huge debts and potentially huge reconstruction costs after a disaster, but compared to the size of its overall economy or government budget these are much more affordable. And developed nations have access to insurance to spread the burden of loss after a disaster - something which is either absent or totally unaffordable in developing countries.