BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Because the whole of society benefits from giving children the best possible start in life, the gove...

Because the whole of society benefits from giving children the best possible start in life, the government should do more to allow more women to make a positive choice to stay at home. State benefit payments to parents should be much more generous, and the pensions system could be altered to avoid penalising women who make this valuable choice. State social services, such as health visitors and early years education teams, should be better funded and more widely available to help support mothers in the home.
Many childcare options are poor quality with one adult looking after many children at once. This can...

Many childcare options are poor quality with one adult looking after many children at once. This can leave young children bored and uninterested slowing their rate of development. Those on low pay are forced to rely on these options to take care of their children even when they are of low quality or they would prefer to stay at home. Supporting all mothers to stay at home would prevent this problem.
The unique situations and power organisations present in many of the African conflicts are only well...

The unique situations and power organisations present in many of the African conflicts are only well understood by the countries involved and their immediate neighbours. A one-size-fits-all international response fails to take notice of these circumstances, meaning that diplomatic negotiations or mediation by these international countries often disintegrate. African leaders also tend to have greater credentials when dealing with each others’ affairs through forums such as SADEC, whereas foreign intervention cannot expect the same levels of trust and co-operation from African countries.
It is important for the development of democracy in Africa, that African countries be seen to be suc...

It is important for the development of democracy in Africa, that African countries be seen to be successfully pursuing and encouraging it themselves. Many African leaders still carry colonial resentments that make foreign intervention difficult or impossible – A case in point being president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Leaders such as this will be willing to listen to African approaches to a problem, whilst foreign ones, however well – intentioned, will be automatically distrusted.
Most of the powerful international countries and organisations (US and UN) are loath to become invol...

Most of the powerful international countries and organisations (US and UN) are loath to become involved in the sort of “peacemaking” (instead of peacekeeping) that is needed in African countries. It will require the active and direct participation of infantry and other elements of armies to fight the sorts of guerrilla wars going on in the DRC. The current trend away from this sort of military action (As in Kosovo), is ill suited to dealing with the African problems. African countries, by contrast, have already illustrated that they are willing and able to become involved in this capacity, as evidenced in the DRC.
Often, only neighbouring countries in Africa are able to respond to crises in time to sort them out ...

The question should be asked, however, whether the involvement of African countries is really this philanthropic. We have seen in places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that many countries, such as Zimbabwe are involved in the war to procure the diamond mines and other resources in the warzones, and thus have a greater vested interest in fuelling the wars, over resolving them.
Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change. Whilst groups such as the UN may ...

The effects - even of regional blocs – on many despots in Africa has been shown to be nil. As evidenced in Zimbabwe, the president Robert Mugabe has consistently thumbed condemnation from those neighbours who have voiced disapproval at his regime. The influence works both ways as well, and many politically powerful - if corrupt and warring – countries force their neighbours to condone their acts. An example is how cronyism in SADEC, as well as Zimbabwe’s powerful role in the organisation, has led to many African nations condoning the human rights abuses in the country.
The unique situations and power organisations present in many of the African conflicts are only well...

The “unique understandings” of African politics is often no more than cronyism, or dictators ensuring each others' continued power. In these cases, an impartial international intervention is far preferable. In other cases, this “unique understanding” means that in places such as the DRC, the surrounding countries have aligned themselves to different sides in the war, escalating it, rather than solving the problem.
It is important for the development of democracy in Africa, that African countries be seen to be suc...

We need to be careful that the “intervention” is justified. Whilst many countries may be democratic only in name, it is generally the role of the international community to determine whether violating the sovereignty of another country is justified. It would be a big mistake to assume that this could be determined by the countries closest to the “despots”, as they would probably be the least impartial people in determining whether a country is in need of “intervention”. Many conflicts that are ongoing have been started or sustained on the belief of neighbours that it was the “moral” thing to do.
Most of the powerful international countries and organisations (US and UN) are loath to become invol...

Just because the intervening country used infantry or tanks instead of negotiation or aerial bombardment (Kosovo), doesn’t make it any more likely to restore peace. On a global scale, Vietnam is the classic example of how using infantry to intervene in a guerrilla war is a futile exercise. On an African stage, the infantry intervention by neighbouring countries has only increased the death toll, not the success at ending the war.
Often, only neighbouring countries in Africa are able to respond to crises in time to sort them out ...

Often, only neighbouring countries in Africa are able to respond to crises in time to sort them out before they can become international incidents. A case in point was during an uprising in the kingdom of Lesotho (Southern Africa), where South Africa sent in troops and was able to stabilise the country and restore the rightful ruler, thus preventing what could have degenerated into the civil wars we see elsewhere on the continent.
Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change. Whilst groups such as the UN may ...

Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change. Whilst groups such as the UN may be successful in keeping the peace in the countries they are involved in (questionable in itself), once the soldiers leave, their philosophy leaves too. By having regional groups intervene, we can be sure that the influences they have in the country will not leave once the troops have, as regional politics will ensure that progress after peacekeeping is continued.
Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout...

Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.
Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout...

Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout the world without needing to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses, could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover, after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be economically beneficial.
Global warming is a world-wide catastrophe waiting to happen: the emission of greenhouse gases affec...

The evidence for global warming is not strong enough to merit this kind of response - it is entirely possible that the changes over the past century have been purely natural. Environmentalists in the developed world can afford the luxury of demanding government action, as increasingly technology-based economies mean that reducing pollution will have a minimal impact on prosperity or employment. Those in the developing world are not so lucky. Industrialisation is a key part of building successful economies and bringing prosperity to the world's poorest people; heavy industry is often the only area in which developing nations can compete.Global action on greenhouse gas emissions would sustain the inequalities of the current status quo. The developing world would be entirely dependent on multinationals to provide the technology they needed to keep pollution levels low, or else would have to stop expanding their economies. Having apparently caused the problem through the industrialisation that made them powerful, developed countries would essentially be pulling the ladder up behind them, depriving other countries of the chance to do the same. This is simply unacceptable: in the modern world, one of our first priorities must be to help the poorest people achieve the prosperity they need to support themselves. The current evidence for global warming does not begin to merit endangering this goal.
Global warming is a world-wide catastrophe waiting to happen: the emission of greenhouse gases affec...

Global warming is a world-wide catastrophe waiting to happen: the emission of greenhouse gases affects everyone. It is therefore vital that the entire world responds now. The targets set by the Kyoto protocol will barely scratch the surface of the problem. Only minimal reductions were agreed to by the developed world, and no real agreement was reached involving the developing world, which is producing a greater percentage of greenhouse gas emissions every year.Gases such as CO2 remain in the atmosphere for centuries. If we wait until we can see the results of global warming, it may be too late - the damage will have been done, and reducing emissions then will have no effect for generations. We therefore must act now, and we must act globally. Developed countries must do all they can to reduce their use of fossil fuels. They must assist developing nations to do the same, by sharing technology or perhaps through 'emissions trading' - allowing poorer countries to sell their quota of pollution in return for hard cash. International pressure must be exerted against those countries which do not co-operate; even if this slows economic growth, it is the poorest regions in the world which would suffer most from more droughts and floods and rising sea-levels. However difficult it may be in the short term, it may save millions of lives in the future.
Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coa...

That mankind is causing global warming is far from being a proven fact. It is true that records show that average temperatures have increased over this century; however, temperatures actually dropped slightly between the 1930s and the 1970s. This was not associated with a reduction in fossil fuel emissions - in fact, they were increasing over this period. If the 'greenhouse gases' are responsible for global warming, how can this be?Accurate records simply do not cover a long enough period to be useful. The earth's average temperature varies naturally through time, and we so far have few or no good explanations to explain events such as the ice ages. Indeed, there was a 'mini-ice age' around four hundred years ago, during which the Thames in London repeatedly froze over during winter; this was followed by an intensive but natural period of 'global warming'. We do not have enough information to say that current trends are not simply natural variation.
Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coa...

Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to provide energy. This has released large volumes of a number of gases into the atmosphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world's remaining large forests - which help absorb CO2 - are being rapidly destroyed by commercial logging and to make way for farm land. Overall, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% over the last century.When in the atmosphere, CO2 and other gases are thought to lead to a 'greenhouse effect': they allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased by up to 0.6°C since the 19th century; the four hottest years since accurate records began have all been in the last decade. Unusual weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Niño events of recent years causing widespread disruption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body set up to study possible global warming, has concluded that '... the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.'
Computer models predict that continued global warming could have catastrophic effects. Changes in te...

Again, our computer models for predicting climate change are far from reliable. The weather is a hugely complex system that we are only just beginning to understand; it is affected by millions of factors, including solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, and other cycles which we are gradually discovering. Very slight changes in the computer model result in immense differences in predictions. Some scientists have, for example, suggested that global warming could actually cause a drop in sea level, as rainfall patterns and ocean currents shift. Indeed, refinements in the models used by the IPCC have caused it to tone down its predictions. In 1990, it estimated that by 2100 the average temperature would rise by 3°C and the sea rise by about 65cm; by 1995, it had revised these to 2°C and 50cm. The more research takes place, the less 'catastrophic' global warming seems to be; however, it is always the predictions of doom which are most widely reported in the media.
Computer models predict that continued global warming could have catastrophic effects. Changes in te...

Computer models predict that continued global warming could have catastrophic effects. Changes in temperature could devastate wildlife, as local vegetation dies off. Patterns of disease could change - already, isolated cases of malaria have been reported far north of traditional danger zones as warmer weather allows the mosquitoes which carry the disease to spread. Most importantly, a portion of the polar ice caps might melt and lead to a rise in sea level, which has already increased by between 10 and 25cm in the last 100 years. Giant cracks have been found in the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, which suggest that it is breaking apart; a section 48 miles wide and 22 miles long drifted free and melted as early as 1994. If, as experts suggest, temperatures rise a further 3°C over the next century, low-lying areas of land and even entire countries - such as Bangladesh - could disappear under the waves.
Healthcare is a human right.

Article 25 (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25) can be interpreted as a duty to provide healthcare. The right to life (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a3) can also be extended to include healthcare, as medical care is the only way that life can be maintained in many situations. Poor people simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare, especially as they tend to have worse living conditions and therefore more medical problems. Their human rights are being violated simply because they cannot afford them.
Would encourage people to go for healthcare when they need it.

(Unnecessary) cosmetic surgery is already very expensive. Most people do not get unnecessary treatment unless they want to fritter away a number of pounds. Most people do not get unnecessary treatment period. Necessary treatment will not be free. It is likely that cheaper treatment and tests that everyone should get will be free; any problems arising from the diagnosis of rare expensive fatal conditions will/can not realistically be expected to be under this this reform. This is not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is about slashing minority rights: Less money/funds for research on curing rare diseases.
waiting lists

One of the chief worries of the public healthcare system is the increased wait times, overcrowding leading to lack of beds and poor quality of treatment. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/02/depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-universal-is/). The NHS already has huge waiting list problems. In survey data, Canadian and British respondents were three to four times more likely to wait more than 6 months for elective surgery than those in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#cite_note-139).
Would cut overall healthcare spending.

The US spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation (http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS08_Table4_HSR.pdf). It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan. Various arguments for universal healthcare center around proposed economic benefits. For instance, running one, centralised healthcare system with one buyer would cost less than keeping open hundreds of health insurance firms. It would also cut down on paperwork, which currently accounts for 24% of healthcare spending in the U.S. People would be more likely to see a doctor sooner rather than later if they don't have to budget for it, meaning that less serious health problems, which are the most expensive, occur.
worries over public healthcare becoming compulsory

This point does not belong on this list. The point of this debate page is "should america have universal healthcare like the NHS in England" which by definition outlaws private health firms. The topic of discussion predisposes a government monopoly. So you don't have to worry that these things would happen. By definition, they would, so your point is a little pointless. Maybe you are trying to say that it would be bad for the government to have a monopoly or that it would bad for private health firms to be outlawed which is a point that fits under this discussion. However, debatably, in other countries, a government monopoly works much better than the US system of private health insurance companies. The reasons for this are outlined in the other arguments on this page. (However, don't get this page confused with the bills being set forth in the Congress and the Senate right now. No one has proposed universal healthcare in any of the bills currently on the table)
Would shift the onus from profitability to public benefit.

Removing profit as a motive means that drug companies would be more likely to consider which drugs would actually benefit the most people and less about which would create the most overall profit. For example, pharmaceutical companies have reduced or dropped their research into developing new antibiotics, even as antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are increasing, because there's less profit to be gained there than in other drug research. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/MN1234A1.DTL)
waiting lists

Well there are two groups of people, those who have health care, and those who don't. The ones who don't I'm sure would rather wait for it, than not get it at all. Those who currently do, is it really justifiable for some people to go untreated just so they wealthier patients enjoy shorter waiting times? I live in the UK, and here if you want, and you can afford it, you can get private insurance. The NHS may have its problems, but it's a lot better than no health care at all.
Internet filters unintentionally impede ability to work

Although the use of internet filters helps deter exposure to inappropriate sites and prevent wasted school time, it also interferes with the students' ability to do research and work. In my personal experience, the filters currently in use are extremely restrictive and wide-reaching, where even the simplest google search can produce entirely restricted websites. This forces the students to attempt to either find their way around the filter or work with whatever info they can reach, thereby obstructing their progress in schoolwork. It is true that filters can be too restrictive when students are trying to gain research information for a project.
Secondary school students know how to fool school filters

Side opposition argues that because most-secondary school pupils are able to use proxies and get around school filters, the filters should not be used. This argument falls down in a number of important regards. Firstly, that is not a problem with filtering, but with filtering done badly. There are technical means by which the proxy-problem can be resolved: known proxy sites can be banned, or the school can shift from using a domain-name or IP-list ban, to some sort of word-filter which would not be constrained. Secondly, not all students are technically proficient. They, at least, would be protected. Thirdly, by forcing students to go around a ban in order access a questionable website, you prevent them from doing so accidently. Lastly, there is a powerful declarative effect when the school says that certain subjects are innappropriate. Before a student can access a forbidden website, he or she must first realize that the school-community considers that sort of behaviour to be bad.
It is important that schools trust students

Whether or not a child can "handle" certain types of material, or if such a question is bogus to begin with, are decisions better left to individual children's parents. The school may provide guidance to parents regarding such issues, but the amount of freedom given to the children is something the parents should decide. It is their responsibility. Allowing students all-access on the school Internet would basically undermine the efforts of those parents who deem it moral to protect their children from certain types of material. You may not agree with the parents' decisions but they are the parents, not you. Therefore, all-access would send out a double-standard (they allow this at school, but not at home) and that would be just as counter-productive to the child's growth. On the other hand if the school chooses to be conservative on the issue, it is less likely to be taken as a "double standard" because the school has a legitimate, utilitarian reason to do so. School is a place for work, not for surfing porn sites buying Harry Potter paraphernalia, conversing with potential pedophiles and viewing tutorials on rolling marijuana joints. Even companies keep tabs on their workers' browsing activity to ensure time is not being wasted. So the school is perfectly right to do the same. And the children with liberal parents can visit any site they want... at home.