BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The middle of a crisis is not the right time for divorce

It is not up to the Spanish state to choose when the Catalans should be able to have a referendum on independence. A time of crisis is as good as any; economic grievances are one of the main drivers in the desire for independence so it should come as no surprise that there is increase desire for a referendum when there is just such a crisis. Spain has already shown that it considers that there never has been and never will be a right time for a divorce. Even in the good times attempts to get an autonomy statute were met by challenges in the constitutional court which after years of deliberation watered down the agreement which had already been watered down by the Spanish Parliament.1 More recently it was in large part the refusal of the Spanish Prime Minister to consider a request to consider Catalonia the same way as the Basques and Navarra in terms of finances that triggered the current crisis.2 1 Pericay, Gaspar, ‘The Spanish Constitutional Court shortens the current Catalan Statute of Autonomy’, Catalan News Agency, 28 June 2010, http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/the-spanish-constitutional-court-shortens-the-current-catalan-statute-of-autonom 2 Guibernau, Montserrat, ‘Calls for independence in Catalonia are part of an evolution of Spain’s democracy that the country’s constitution may have to come to accommodate.’, London School of Economics and Political Science, European Politics and Policy, 8 October 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/10/08/catalonia-independence-spain-constitution/
Catalans clearly want self determination

Every peoples has the right to self determination. This is enshrined in the UN Charter right at the start in Article 1 as a purpose of the United Nations “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and is also in other major international agreements.1 Large numbers of states have been recognised since this principle of self determination was recognised by the world in 1945 a great many of them states that are less natural states in terms of size, economy, ethnicity or geography so it would be wrong to deny a right exercised by so many others from the Catalans. It is clear that the Catalans wish to exercise this right to decide their own destiny democratically through a referendum. When polled by the Catalan Survey Institute 74.1% said they would be in favour of organising a referendum with 19.9% against, the remaining 6% were undecided.2 1 The United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations’, 26 June 1945, Chapter 1, Article 1, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml 2 Coll, Gaspar Pericay, ‘74% of Catalan citizens are in favour of holding an independence referendum in Catalonia’, Catalan News Agency, 10 October 2012, http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/74-catalan-citizens-are-favour-holding-independence-referendum-catalonia
Control over Catalan destiny would reduce tensions and may help prevent independence

For Spain by far the biggest reason for allowing a referendum is that it may well be the best way of keeping Catalonia within Spain over the long term. So long as Spain says it will not allow a referendum or give the Catalans control over their own destiny the movement for Catalan independence is likely to get stronger as it can focus on the denial of democratic rights – Spain is waving a red flag to the bull. Allow a referendum, particularly if it has to be accompanied by a long period of campaigning for reflection and Catalans will have to agonise whether it is in their own best interests,1 decide whether they want to damage their economy by having large companies such as Planeta the world’s largest Spanish language publishing business pulling out,2 sever extensive links with Spain, and risk their membership of the European Union which Spain would veto.3 If Spain were to offer as an alternative a new constitutional settlement that solves many of the grievances the Catalans have at the moment they might find they really want to remain within Spain,4 much as many scots would prefer devo-max. 1 Bloomberg editors, ‘To Keep Catalonia In, Spain Should Allow a Cote to Secede’, Bloomberg, 15 October 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/to-keep-catalonia-in-spain-should-allow-a-vote-to-secede.html 2 Charlemagne, ‘Hostage to Catalonia’, The Economist, 5th October 2012, http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/10/spanish-politics 3 Bollier, Sam, ‘Catalans press for secession from Spain’, Al Jazeera, 30 September 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/09/201292913514639254.html 4 Bloomberg editors, ‘To Keep Catalonia In, Spain Should Allow a Cote to Secede’, Bloomberg, 15 October 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/to-keep-catalonia-in-spain-should-allow-a-vote-to-secede.html
Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.

Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. Researchers have found that children aged 6-13 who were shown commercials for junk food were more likely to pick meals that were bad for them1. The adverts just try to make children eat as much bad food as possible without any concern for the health costs. 1 Junk Food Harmful for Kids. Hindustan Times
People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.

Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all. 1Schwartz, The Tyranny of Choice, 2004. 2Kekeh, Too Beautiful? British MP Draws Line in Sand for Cosmetic Ads, 2011.
Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product

Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1. 1 Skinny models 'send unhealthy message'. The Guardian.
Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.

Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control. 1 Schools Food Trust uses celebs to promote healthy eating. Campaign Live.
There are too many advertisements in everyday life.

Though there are a great many advertisements in everyday life, there are not so many that they can't simply be ignored. Advertisements attempt to get you to buy a product, if you're not interested, then don't buy the product. For every person who finds all the advertisements stressful, another person finds them enjoyable and something to read or watch while they make their daily journey to work or school. Out of control could mean simply that customers think businesses are spending too much on advertising. Without proof that the number of advertisements is having a negative effect, the point is worthless. improve this
Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.

Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.
Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.

Our society is built around the idea that companies produce things that people want, and this is what makes us prosperous. If consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products then what happens to the people whose job it is to make them? The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some people take materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and then a little extra when they treat themselves. This is a much better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy the things they need - that would be a step backwards. improve this
Advertising helps us choose between different goods.

Advertising does not help us choose, it merely confuses customer who are not sure who is offering what. This is particularly true with advertisements that compare products with other businesses. In Britain, advertising for broadband (internet) services confuse nine out of ten people1. With different costs and add-ons, it's hard to for a customer to know what they are actually paying for and whether it is better than going somewhere else. As a result, many customers end up stressed and confused. 1  Misleading broadband advertising confuses customers. Virgin.
There are too many advertisements in everyday life.

The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement. 1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad. New York Times.
Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.

People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. 1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely To See an Ad. The New York Times.
Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.

Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole. improve this
Advertising helps us choose between different goods.

Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available.
Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be.

No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth £80 million. For the small annoyance of having to have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them. improve this
People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.

People are unhappy because they can't have everything, not because they are given too much choice and find it stressful. In fact, advertisements play a crucial role in ensuring that what money people have, they spend on the most appropriate product for themselves. If advertisements were not permitted, people would waste money on an initial product when, given the choice, they clearly would go for another. A meta-analysis incorporating research from 50 independent studies found no meaningful connection between choice and anxiety, but speculated that the variance in the studies left open the possibility that choice overload could be tied to certain highly specific and as yet poorly understood pre-conditions1. 1^ Scheibehenne, Benjamin; Greifeneder, R. & Todd, P. M. (2010). "Can There Ever be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload". Journal of Consumer Research 37: 409-425.
Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product

The media and celebrity magazines do much more harm, by mocking unattractive or overweight people, and glorifying models who are often dangerously thin. Adverts never criticise people - that would be terrible for the companies behind them. Their aim is to understand and provide what people want, and so their adverts only ever reflect what people think. If people's perceptions are wrong, then it not the advertisers' job to put them right, but politicians, the media and schools. improve this
Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.

Advertising in fact gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about them. In the film industry, the big film studios spend more than $75 million on advertising alone1. Small films cannot compete. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses. 1 When Is Too Much Advertising Too Much? Spinoff Online.
PR produces fairer results

First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.
PR increases political engagement which benefits society.

PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005,  p5-6)
PR leads to weaker government.

Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation.
PR decreases political engagement.

PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters.
Coalition government is a good thing.

Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)
Safe seats will be reduced.

If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’).    In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)
PR creates an unfair balance of power.

Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda.
The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important.

A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament.
Coalition government is a good thing.

Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.