BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Replacing their currencies with the Euro would also benefit both Switzerland and Norway. Over the p...

Even if EU membership were in the interests of Switzerland and Norway, the requirement that all new members join the Euro provides a strong argument against joining the Union itself. At present, both countries have strong currencies, with the Swiss Franc a major international reserve currency in its own right. Through the Krone and Franc they can control their own monetary policy to suit economic conditions. By contrast, small EU states are at the mercy of the European Central Bank, having to endure interest rates that may be right for Germany or France, but which are too tight or too loose for Ireland or Belgium. This explains why EU countries such as Denmark and the UK have so far refused to join the Euro. Norway and Switzerland may also wonder whether they want to yoke themselves to profligate debtor countries like Italy, Greece, whose falling credit ratings are placing monetary union under strain at present. And neither Norway or Switzerland has the financial problems of Iceland, although the credit crunch has required Switzerland to support its international banks – in ways which EU membership might well have prevented.
The world is safer with a single strong superpower than it was in a “bipolar” Cold War with hostile ...

The existence of a single democratic superpower promotes the spread of democracy and stability. If there is to be only one superpower, let it be democratic since democracy is the most desirable system of government. In the twenty-first century it has to be realised that states which abuse human rights and threaten their neighbours (e.g. by sponsoring terrorism or building weapons of mass destruction) cannot be allowed to get away with things. The values of the USA give it the legitimacy to confront rogue states and if necessary intervene to uphold peace and stability. It has done this in recent years in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the knowledge that America will act toughly has also led Libya and North Korea to change direction in ways which make the world safer for everyone.
The world is safer with a single strong superpower than it was in a “bipolar” Cold War with hostile ...

The world is safer with a single strong superpower than it was in a “bipolar” Cold War with hostile global alliances. For over forty years the USA and USSR were engaged in a nuclear standoff where one moment of miscalculation could have meant the end of the world. Meanwhile they fought by proxy through client states and guerrilla movements in bloody conflicts in places like Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan. The world is also far safer than it was during the first half of the twentieth century, when having a number of strong military powers (e.g. Germany, Britain, France, Japan, Russia) resulted in two world wars and many smaller conflicts. History shows that the world is much better off dominated by a single democracy.
The existence of a single democratic superpower promotes the spread of democracy and stability. If ...

While the United States extols democracy, it frequently dictates to or ignores the concerns of other nations and is willing to intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations for its own purposes. This undermines the doctrine of national sovereignty upon which international security is based, and makes the world less stable as a result. True democracy abhors the one-sided vertical distribution of power. Democracy prospers best in a world in which power is divided among many players, requiring them to talk and negotiate rather than trying to impose solutions upon those with whom they disagree. By contrast, the United States definitely abuses its power in the international arena, intervening in areas which affect its national interests, but ignoring worse situations elsewhere.
The existence of a single democratic superpower promotes the spread of democracy and stability. If ...

The existence of a single democratic superpower promotes the spread of democracy and stability. If there is to be only one superpower, let it be democratic since democracy is the most desirable system of government. In the twenty-first century it has to be realised that states which abuse human rights and threaten their neighbours (e.g. by sponsoring terrorism or building weapons of mass destruction) cannot be allowed to get away with things. The values of the USA give it the legitimacy to confront rogue states and if necessary intervene to uphold peace and stability. It has done this in recent years in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the knowledge that America will act toughly has also led Libya and North Korea to change direction in ways which make the world safer for everyone.
As September 11 demonstrated, many non-state actors are hostile to peace and security. The world ne...

September 11 demonstrated that a single nation, no matter how powerful, cannot control world events. In fact the US is relatively weak in various ways; Iraq and Afghanistan have shown its limitations very clearly, with its mighty military unable to control small numbers of insurgents. It has become obvious that its forces are severely overstretched, and that the American public lacks the will to see the mission through. The USA may now cut and run, leaving chaos behind. This has in turn constrained the US administration in its dealings with Iran. Its diplomatic power is also weaker than it first appears, as fragile regimes know that too close a relationship with Washington will fuel domestic discontent. Meanwhile American willingness to guarantee collective security has allowed many western nations to neglect their own defence, allowing themselves to believe that their superpower ally will pay the economic and human costs of security on their behalf.
As September 11 demonstrated, many non-state actors are hostile to peace and security. The world ne...

As September 11 demonstrated, many non-state actors are hostile to peace and security. The world needs a powerful leader to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide better security for all people. Without a single superpower coordinating global security measures, Earth is much more likely to be a troubled place in the near future. Fragile states need a protector to prevent them collapsing under pressure from extremist groups. Spineless western countries which are not prepared to spend money on their own collective security or to send their forces abroad also rely upon the willingness of the USA as single superpower to shoulder these burdens for them.
A Single superpower can give global leadership on important international concerns. Because the USA...

Many international problems require cooperation between large numbers of states. The existence of a single superpower actually undermines this kind of coordinated response. This is partly because America sees the United Nations as a rival, and cannot be bothered to work within the only truly global institution to build consensus, and partly because the USA is often out of step with world opinion and arrogantly refuses to consider compromise. On many issues the USA has either refused to give a lead (climate change) or has actually obstructed progress (pharmaceutical licensing, steps to ban the use of anti-personnel mines). In other areas the US administration has sought to impose a self-interested or faulty policy upon the rest of the world (e.g. abstinence education as a solution for HIV/AIDS in Africa, refusal to support women’s health programmes if these include advice on abortion).
A Single superpower can give global leadership on important international concerns. Because the USA...

A Single superpower can give global leadership on important international concerns. Because the USA is affected by the same problems as other countries (for example, climate change, epidemics, oil crises, economic depression, illegal narcotics, nuclear proliferation, etc.) it is in its interests to promote policies of benefit to all. When the United States becomes engaged with an issue, it can swing its many allies behind a policy and back it with its considerable economic clout. An example of this would be the President’s initiative on HIV/AIDS in the developing world.
The Cold War ended because the USA won – that is why it is the single remaining superpower. And tha...

The USA may stand for democracy and both economic and individual freedoms at home, but it has consistently failed to translate its ideals into the international arena. It continues to support a range of undemocratic states where human rights are suppressed, for example Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt (and arguably Israel). It fails to apply meaningful sanctions against autocratic states like China and Uzbekistan, and has tried to undermine the International Criminal Court’s work in upholding human rights standards. And far from promoting free trade and open markets, it tries to protect its domestic industries through a mass of tariffs, subsidies, standards and tax-breaks. Indeed, many people blame the US for blocking a global trade deal which would bring huge benefits to poor countries. All of this means that the single superpower fails to use its dominant position for good.
The Cold War ended because the USA won – that is why it is the single remaining superpower. And tha...

The Cold War ended because the USA won – that is why it is the single remaining superpower. And that victory proved the superiority of western liberal democracy and capitalism over totalitarianism and a command economy. All those who prize individual freedom and open societies, or who benefit from the prosperity brought by free markets should welcome the USA’s victory. During the Cold War the USA’s competition with the Soviet Union often led it to support right-wing dictatorships providing they were anti-communist, but since 1990 it has thrown its weight behind democracy, encouraging many more countries to develop free political systems. America is not perfect, but it still acts as a powerful role model for other states, encouraging the spread of democratic values and individual freedoms, and promoting the most effective system of wealth creation that has yet been found.
Many of those who dislike a single superpower would prefer the United Nations to have a greater role...

The United Nations was actually quite effective during the Cold War, mediating disputes and acting as a forum in which the two superpowers could talk and so avoid disastrous misunderstandings. Both sides saw the value in treating the UN with respect in order to put their case to the wider international community. From the 1950s to 1980s the UN Health, Agriculture and Development agencies, and its peacekeeping forces achieved great things, for example eradicating smallpox, promoting the “green revolution” and helping calm conflicts in places such as Cyprus and Congo. In a unipolar world the UN has been both more ambitious and less successful, a victim of the whims of a single American superpower. This has led it into disastrous failures in Somalia, the Balkans and Central Africa, and implicated it in the tragedy of the Iraqi oil-for-food programme. At other times (Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003) it has been ignored by the USA and devalued as a global institution.
Many of those who dislike a single superpower would prefer the United Nations to have a greater role...

Many of those who dislike a single superpower would prefer the United Nations to have a greater role in global affairs. Yet during the bi-polar period of the Cold War the UN couldn’t get anything worthwhile done. Because all important issues were seen through the prism of East-West rivalry, action was always blocked in the Security Council by either America or Russia. Supporters of the UN have to admit that since 1990 the global body has been able to act much more constructively. This can be seen in a development agenda that is no longer politicised by rival capitalist and communist ideologies, and by its successes in liberating Kuwait during the First Gulf War and nation-building in places like Timor L’Este, Sierra Leone and Liberia. The creation of an International Criminal Court and the wider promotion of human rights are other advances which have only been possible since the early 1990s.
administrative efficiency; ensuring justice

The Jean Charles Menezes case would not have been able investigated as thoroughly as it was were it not for the CCTV footage which was obtained at the Stockwell tube station where he was shot. A more recent example where CCTV has been used in the justice system is with the trial of the murderer of Rhys Jones. Such a heinous act would still be lingering and unsolved were it not for the ever watchful eye of the CCTV cameras. Such justice and peace of mind cannot be equated to "freedom of privacy".
freedom of privacy is threatened

The House of Lords have expressed their view that privacy is an "essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom" (1). We can no longer say that we live private lives when every move is being watched by one out of the four million CCTV cameras in Britain. Our every move is being watched. Such surveillance renders our society as equivalent to a large scale big brother. Our every move can be traced and information can be gathered about our daily activities. If this information were to be misplaced, which central government seems to do frequently, then who knows what other breaches our freedoms will endure. (1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/06/surveillance-freedom-peers
Council misusing their power

Local councils are not using their powers of surveillance to stop the crimes which you or I would consider important. Instead, such instruments are being used as a profit making excuse. Local councils are using the cameras to catch people who do not clean up dog foul and fly tip. To discover whether rights are harmed a balancing exercise needs to take place. The minimal criminal protection which local governments are using the CCTV for is not enough to override our freedom of privacy. This freedom is being threatened for local government's financial benefit, clearly this is not a fair exchange.
information gathered used to fight terrorism

Such examination is only utilised in a society if it is revealed to society. At present, we are not informed of any terrorist activity before it occurs, we are merely left to carry on with our daily lives. We receive no benefit. As with the Twin Towers, when it was held that there was intelligence as to the plane hi-jackers intentions, yet it was not given serious thought. To justify an encroachment upon our right, surely the CCTV cameras should provide some benefit for us individual members of society. Retroactive action is simply not good enough.
administrative efficiency; ensuring justice

This argument of course presupposes that we believe the Jean Charles Menezes case was investigated thoroughly. We have known for years that we have a corrupt police force. Stephen Lawrence highlighted the institutional racism which is inherent in our police force and the Menezes case has only served to show society that the police force is nothing more than a band of brothers who protect each others interests. With such a police force, CCTV footage can be tampered with or simply 'lost' in the administrative system. Thus, CCTV footage is merely a helpful tool for the police force, not to society as a whole.
Prevention of crimes

CCTV is a threat to freedom as it can often provoke someone to committ a crime. For those people who are not keen on being watched, it can be unnerving and drive someone to take it out on the camera. Nobody likes the speed cameras, for example, which are basically another form of CCTV. These cameras in particular along with a few cameras outside smaller businesses are often damaged or completely destroyed. This constitutes a crime of malicious mischief. There is also the threat that when there is a chance of being caught on CCTV it gives the criminal a bigger 'buzz' when they think they could committ an illegal act right under the authorities nose and walk away from it. This all basically falls back on provocation. The criminal can either become more daring with the bigger 'rush' and more risk added to their devient behaviour or, some people who, under all usual circumstances, are calm, law abiding citizens may be pushed to destroy the cameras to prevent some stranger watching them and thus restricting their freedom of privacy. This destruction is a crime that could be prevented if the cameras were not there.
freedom of privacy is threatened

'Freedom of privacy' is a redundant concept. Just as a celebrity cannot claim privacy when they are out walking the streets, neither can we. We accept Britain's high level of protection and we accept the Crown Prosecution Service help in building a case against a magnitude of criminals; just as celebrities accept the magazine deals for photos and money for high exposure. In accepting such protection, such financial reward for the celebrities, we impliedly accept the fact that hand in hand with those positive aspects of society comes the negative side of being watched.
Council misusing their power

This is a misleading argument. Yes, the crimes listed are relatively small, but they are crimes nonetheless. In addition, the money gained from such fines goes to local government. In turn, this is given back to society via local schools and the NHS system, why shouldn't money be taken from people who commit misdemeanours and be reinvested into the local area? In catching misdemeanours via CCTV cameras, we are improving our living environment, surely this is better than the minimal interference cameras have on our lives; they only really affect us if we are doing something we shouldn't.
information gathered used to fight terrorism

The CCTV surveillance is one of the most effective tools we have against terrorism. From investigating past actions to finding patterns for future actions, CCTV footage proves invaluable. In investigating the July 2005 bombings "police examined about 2,500 items of CCTV footage" (1). Within that footage was valuable information on how the bombers collaborated, what their plan was and what signs they were exhibiting. As a society we can use such information to detect future attacks. Surely this is protection of our freedom of life rather than a violation of our freedom of privacy? (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Initial_results
Lotteries are in effect a regressive form of taxation, played much more by the poorer members of soc...

Lotteries are in effect a regressive form of taxation, played much more by the poorer members of society than by the rich. It would be far fairer if the revenues raised by a lottery were obtained through general taxation, e.g. income tax, which is much more progressive. This argument becomes even more important if the proceeds of a lottery are spent on things which fail to benefit the poor - the millions received from Britain’s National Lottery by the Royal Opera House represent a considerable redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Gambling is a major social evil, an addictive habit that ruins thousands of lives and damages famili...

Gambling is a major social evil, an addictive habit that ruins thousands of lives and damages families every year. A national lottery not only provides another easy opportunity for gambling, but also removes the stigma from all forms of gambling and acts as a gateway for potential addicts to become hooked on more expensive and ruinous forms. Governments should be in the business of harm-reduction, not legitimising such destructive activities.
National lotteries also distort charitable giving, as many people justify their purchase of tickets ...

National lotteries also distort charitable giving, as many people justify their purchase of tickets as a form of donation, often over-estimating the proportion of the ticket price that actually goes to good causes. One result of this is that direct charitable giving may decline significantly. And even if the lottery board gives some of its revenues to charities, these may not be the same as those which lost out when the lottery was created - for example, a lottery board is more likely for political reasons to favour domestic and secular charities over international or religious foundations.
It is wrong for governments to take advantage of their citizens by encouraging them to play a lotter...

If nobody ever won the lottery, then nobody would play it. The public appreciates that the odds against them are very high indeed, but the purchase of a ticket gives them a chance of a fortune, however remote, and the opportunity to dream of a different life. As other forms of gambling are legal, along with many other ways of harmlessly but enjoyably wasting money, there is nothing wrong with the government benefiting from the pursuit.
Lotteries are in effect a regressive form of taxation, played much more by the poorer members of soc...

Playing the lottery is a free choice and is by no means confined to the poorest. The issue of regression relates more strongly to what the revenues from a lottery are spent on (although it is patronising to assume that only the rich can enjoy opera, for example), rather than on the principle of a lottery. In many countries the general taxation system is far from progressive in any case, with an increasing share of government revenue coming from indirect taxes such as fuel duties and sales taxes, rather than from income or property taxes.
Gambling is a major social evil, an addictive habit that ruins thousands of lives and damages famili...

A lottery is significantly different, and thus much less harmfully addictive, compared to other forms of gambling. This is largely because the chance of winning a lottery is so small that there can be none of the regular small gains which convince the habitual gambler that they are on a winning streak, and so reinforce the addiction. Ultimately, very few of the people who play lotteries are addicted to gambling or will become so; should something enjoyed by so many be abolished because a few abuse it?
A national lottery, run with government backing amid huge publicity for attractive good causes, crea...

Overall, national lotteries tend to increase the size of the market for gambling, and so create more jobs than they destroy, although some disruption in the industry is inevitable. In particular, sales of lottery tickets can be a major part of the business of small shops and post offices, ensuring that they stay in business and continue to serve their local communities, especially in remote or deprived areas.
National lotteries also distort charitable giving, as many people justify their purchase of tickets ...

The pattern of charitable giving may change as a result of a lottery, but fashions in benevolence change considerably from year to year in any case, so the disruptive impact should not be exaggerated. Overall, lotteries tend to result in more money overall going to charities, while the major international charities increasingly act as channels for developed governments’ aid funding to developing countries, and so rely less on individual donations. Lottery funding may be made conditional on matching money being raised privately, giving greater publicity and momentum to charity fund-raising campaigns.