BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All forms of government including democracy are flawed.

It has been said by those representing the no position that it is possible to correct injustices through normal channels of political conduct. While it may be possible it is often not likely. In a representative democracy the people who are elected to office do not have a clue as to why they were elected in the first place. When the voters decide who to vote for they have to consider the the stand of each candidate on many different issues, and their chances of winning. A person may agree with candidate A on 3 issues be opposed on 7, with Candidate B agree on 5 and be opposed on 5, and with candidate C agree on 8 and be opposed on 2. This person may vote for candidate A because he is in agreement with him on the 3 most important issues. An ideological twin of this voter may vote for candidate B because they agree with her more often. Therefore the usual claims by a victor that she has a mandate to do this or that are nonsense. A candidate may claim that she pays attention to the polls of her constituents but studies have shown that the way a question is asked can determine the outcome of the answers. Still another theory is that the people elected to an office should not be concerned with what the people of their district think today but that they should vote to do what they think is best reguardless of what the voters in their district think. Furthermore many candidates only pretend to care about what their constituents think or what is in their best interests anyways. Studies done on game theory show that special interest groups will almost always come out the winners in the competition over government policies because for an investment of x amount of resources they can make a return of many hundreds of times their initial investment. Yet the people who represent the general welfare would go bankrupt if they tried to defeat these numerous and powerful groups. To even confront one of them is going to leave you worse off financially than if you had done nothing at all. Why because the costs of each special interest special treatment are spread over the whole society. It is these collective costs that destroy the general welfare. But if you confront one special interest you will bear most of the cost for your society. And since special interests usually win you will be charged twice. Structural flaws as these cause those who have lost by playing by rigged rules to try to play by their own rules. Yes it is chaotic but chaos is unavoidable. The only question is whether or not you will be personally affected by the chaos of government agents often acting on behalf of special interests or the chaos of some non-conformists trying to defend the common good. Or whether you think that it is the non-conformists who are the special interest group and it is the government defending the common good.
The debate can become overshadowed by the violence

Whilst violence is always regrettable it is entirely possible the issue would not have got attention without it. And whilst some people will be dissuaded others are intelligent enough to look for the arguments behind the issues. Perhaps coming to a site like this to see how the other side thinks. When that happens the truth eventually emerges Even violent CD can at times be justified especially when the government is breaking its own rules. Governments are institutions of violence. There has to be at least the threat of violence to force people to obey even just laws. The threat of violence is also the use of violence. If those threats are not sometimes carried out they will seen to be empty threats and criminals will run rampant over society. Yet often criminals capture the controls of the state. The state then wages war against society. Some people could conclude that such a situation exists in America in the early 21st Century. In such a situation if the people are not allowed to use violence to protect themselves from a morally bankrupt state it is like a conflict in which one side is waging a violent war against another side that seeks to defend itself solely by asking the criminals to cease and desist with their criminal behavior.
... but very rarely!

...but only in very limited circumstances. If you think speed limits should be reduced, you should not break them as an act of civil disobedience but vote for politicians who promise to reduce them. If you want to end scientific experiments on animals, you should not commit acts of civil disobedience but vote for politicians who promise to ban them. The flaw in this argument is that the way we elect MPs in the UK means that most people's votes are ineffective because they live in safe constituencies and, even when they are effective, it is usually only betweeen the two leading parties in the constituency with no opportunity to choose between different candidates from the same party who may have different views on speed limits, animal experiments or whatever matters to us. The disenfranchized black voters of South Africa were morally entitled to use civil disobedience in their campaign because democratic methods were not available to them. Oponents of the massacre of Jews by Nazis would similarly have been morally entiitled to use civil disobedience. The present Government was elected by only 35% of the voters. Civil disobedience would be fully justifable now in the UK in favour of a more democratic voting system that resulted in more representative Parliaments and allowed us to choose between candidates of different views in the same party. Once that is achieved, civil disobedience should be less necessary and less justifiable for other causes.
Sometimes it’s the only tool in the box

There is a difference between breaking the law to make a point and mass protest of an entirely legal kind. If Ghandi or Martin Luther King had been able to rally enough people they would have created enough publicity for their cause and they wouldn’t have had to break the law. In a democratic society, civil disobedience is never the only "tool in the box." There are always the power tools. In a democracy, the power tools are simply the legal channels. While the actions of Martin Luther King, Junior should certainly be applauded, we must look to two instances in which the legal channels were far more beneficial. First, MLK orchestrated a great showing in his march from Selma to Montgomery. The spotlight shined brightly on this march. Often revered as a great act of civil disobedience, the fact is that MLK acted completely within the law. The legal channels cleared the way for him to march, and the issue rose to national prominence. No where did civil disobedience occur, so we see that it is never the only tool left in the box. Furthermore, arguably the most significant Supreme Court case of the Civil Rights era occurred exclusively through the legal channels. Brown v. Board of Education occurred in 1954 without any civil disobedience. The issue of segregated schools rose to prominence and was properly addressed. Quite simply, civil disobedience is never the only tool in the box in a democracy. There are always various avenues to obtain change. More often than not, these avenues are far more appropriate and capture the need for change much more than an often senseless act of breaking the law.
An act of civil disobedience sets a precedence of breaking the law.

If civil disobedience is used, a precedence of breaking the law in order to obtain change occurs. When this happens, any person with a personal belief in a cause can engage in civil disobedience and violate the law of the land. With the precedence firmly established, where is the line? If civil disobedience becomes an accepted form of lobbying for a law change, does the law not become useless? Does a constant cycle of law breaking with personal vindication ensue? To engage in civil disobedience is to walk on a slippery slope. The line is so unclear and so fragile that chaos and lawlessness may follow. Quite simply, to break the law in order to obtain change does nothing but create a false sense of justification for even more people to break laws in order to reach an end.
There is no agreement on what CD is.

Civil disobedience requires the outright and explicit breaking of law, breaching the contract we made with the government when we voted them into power. Law-abiding demonstrations and protests fall under the same category as lobbying, which is decidedly not civil disobedience. Rioting and other law-breaching activities which are often praised as morally upstanding and "justified" are in fact anything but. These practices infringe on the rights of other in many different and complex ways, sometimes these effects can be direct, such as destruction from rioters, and other times they can be indirect, such as ineffectual, useless, and non-controversial legislation passed in an effort to dissuade potential rioters. Even more damaging is legislation that is passed directly to appease rioters, which consequently harms those who are not demonstrating in illegal ways. In a modern, developed state, i.e. Canada vs. Iraq, civil disobedience is a harmful shortcut that many cynics unfortunately resort to. People need to realize that civil disobedience has both short, and long term consequences. There is an abundance of acceptable paths to take in order to combat an allegedly corrupt government that need to be exhausted (which is theoretically impossible) before true civil disobedience (in the form of a coup) should morally take place.
Sometimes it’s the only tool in the box

Civil disobedience was practised to great effect by people such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King. It is difficult to imagine the change they effected coming about any other way – or certainly as quickly. Their civil disobedience corrected a huge injustice at a time when no politicians took them seriously. In fact Martin Luther King said that not only was it okay to break unjust laws but that we have a moral responsibility to do so. As St Augustine said, 'An unjust law is no law at all.'
It sets a bad example

Sometimes we have to break an unjust law. The legislature is fallible, laws can be made for the interests of particular groups and they can become outdated. When this happens the very many people who benefit from the status quo will fight to keep it as is. In this case, there is often no alternative but to refuse to abide by a law which is morally wrong. Laws are a basket from which we have to pick and choose because to obey unjust laws leads to anarchy just as fast as not obeying just laws. Furthermore governments themselves often do not even obey their own laws then the population has no recourse but to resort to vigilante actions.
Atheists are more likely to respect female rights

By looking at many religions we can see how women are not treated as equal. We have Islam, where women are made to walk behind men and are not allowed to be in the same room as men that are not related to them. We then have Catholics who do not allow the ordination of females. The most tolerant religion to women and their rights is protestantism; but that is the most secular religion of the three. From this we can infer that the more secular, the more respect for women and their rights, therefore the more benevolent the people.
Norway still the world's best place to live (With 70% atheists)

For the fourth year in a row, the United Nations has ranked Norway as having the highest standard of living in the world. Sweden, Australia and Canada are next in line, while the United States is further down the scale. Also one of the happiest people in the world. Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95 percent say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74 percent say other people can be trusted.
The history of atheist countries is not good.

Yes we should not use broad brush strokes to paint all atheist countries as the same but many of historys worst regimes have been atheist. Revolutionary France was probably the first officially atheist country, and it is best known for guillotining those not considered revolutionary enough. Then there are the big bad regimes of the twentieth century. Nazi Germany and Communism. Neither are known for their tolerance. Communism did of course have some good points such as education for all and (towards) equality between men and women as well as supposedly little racism. Often these atheist regimes espouse some progressive and modern principles but they go too far and become extreemist. What this really shows is that it is not extreemists of any sort that we want. It does not matter if the extreemists are atheists or religious extreemism is bad in all its forms.
Atheist countries have higher suicide.

Studies have shown that athism and atheist countries have higher suicide rate... http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found. This in my mind indicates that Athist countries are worse off than religoius countries as this indicates that their lives are worth less to them and living their lives causes additional stresses that religious people do not have to deal with.
What is an Atheist country? Sweden has 23%,Norway has 17% and Switzerland has 9% non-creationists respectively

The point on the right is a 'no point' or else a call for the revision of the debate topic and definition to say 'secular' where it says 'Atheist'. As there is no such thing as an 'Atheist' Country. Or maybe 'atheist-friendly' for example the Czech republic or Switzerland or Norway or Sweden or Estonia where most people believe in a life force that they do not call God; while not being strictly against the concept,idea or existence of God. Switzerland is the neutral country of neutral countries and her tolerance of different faiths/non-faiths, people,cultures and so forth as well as the tolerance evident in other countries that accommodate and boast of high Atheist populations; can account for both high reported atheist factions and for a general sense of peace. That is to say, neutrality and tolerance can be a common cause for peace and reported Atheism(people are not afraid to voice uncommon views). While the two effects though correlated do not necessarily pose a causal relationship. Counter-argument: The fact that they had a 'religion' so to speak made them non-Atheist. Just as Hindus and Buddhists are not atheists.
Countries that lean towards atheism rank highly on prosperity index

If we are taking atheist simply to mean not believing in god then there are countries that are majority atheist. And as Nick Cohen says in his article many of them are countries considered to be more tolerent. The countries in Europe where less than 50% answered yes to believing that there is a god were Estonia 16%, Czech Republic 19%, Sweden 23%, Denmark 31%, Norway 32%, France and Netherlands 34%, Latvia and Slovenia 37%, UK and Iceland 38%, Bulgaria 40%, Finland 41%, Belgium 43%, Luxemburg and Hungary 44%, Germany 47%, Switzerland 48% and Lithuania 49%.[[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf]] These countries are ranked 31, 25, 3, 4, 5, 17, 8, 37, 20, 12, (Iceland not listed), 46, 1, 13, 27 (Luxemburg not listed), 14, 2, (Lithuania not listed), overall an impressive average of 16.5 for 16 countries on the Legatum Prosperity Index[[http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx]] as this includes areas such as saftey and security, democratic governance, personal freedom and social capital it includes a broad base of areas that might be considered benevolent among the factors taken into account. By comparison the countries that have over 50% believing there is a god in that poll and are in the EU (so as to be fair) have an average rank of 25.5 (excluding Cyprus and Malta).
What is an Atheist country? Sweden has 23%,Norway has 17% and Switzerland has 9% non-creationists respectively

The countries with the highest reported Atheist populations have creationist majorities.-[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe]] While Adolf Hitler was not Christian nor arguably famously atheist. The religion of the Nazis did not really accommodate God therefore in that sense was Atheist. And of-course wasn't monotheist (Judaism,Christianity & Islam) therefore was Atheist in that sense also. It did not include any deities and so was not poly theist either. (is there any other sense in which an idea or a person can be Atheist?) "Hitler and his henchmen brought forth a new telling of Nordic and Germanic mythology coupled with extravagant pageantry, in an attempt to both unite the people of Germany under a new faith and to replace the peaceful social conventions of Christianity. This new Nazi faith was indoctrinated into both men and women at a very young age, delineating separate rolls for each as the progenitors of this master race.Let's take a look at some of the characteristics of this Nazi faith: A belief in racial superiority, as expressed in the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan race. A belief in the state as superior to the individual. A belief in Hitler as a messianic leader. A belief in military service and military endeavors as the most noble of human undertakings."- [[http://samuraisam1.blogspot.com/2005/12/philosophy-friday-nazi-religion.html]] counterargument to counterargument: Actually Buddhism is considered to be atheist by a large number of scholars. [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/buddhistatheism.shtml]] While Hinduism is not a theistic religion it does include deities/gods and is not Atheist in the first sense. Having a religion does not exempt atheism. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]]
The survival of the Post Office is more in the interest of private companies than the general public

Nowadays, only 14 per cent of letters are personal correspondence - the rest is mail sent by businesses, much of it junk. So the Royal Mail is no longer primarily a service run for the public - it's a company used by private businesses and subsidised by the taxpayer. The ideological argument for keeping the Royal Mail state-run is therefore a false one. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46701,news-comment,news-politics,pros-and-cons-part-privatisation-of-the-post-office
The Royal Mail is an essential pillar of public life

The Royal Mail is a national institution with a history dating back to 1516, and still the only affordable way by which people can send letters. Even Margaret Thatcher resisted privatising it. It would be wrong to sell off part of our heritage. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46701,news-comment,news-politics,pros-and-cons-part-privatisation-of-the-post-office
competition between post offices would be unfair to the public

The problem with privitisation is that private companies will always seek to make profit. As businesses do use the post services the most, these will be the most profitable areas to work in. Therefore, private companies will operate in those highly populated city areas. This is where they will make the most profit. However, this would leave rural populations at a loss. No private company would wish to operate in such areas as they would yield so little profit and could even generate a loss. Therefore these rural areas would be even more disconnected from the rest of the country as they would not have a postal service. We need to keep the Post Office as a public institution in order to give rural people the same level of postal services as the rest of the population.
The survival of the Post Office is more in the interest of private companies than the general public

While only a small proportion of mail is personal correspondence the service that Royal Mail provides cannot be seen as merely a wasteful, taxpayer-subsidised, business-orientated enterprise. The universal service which guarentees delivery to every address in the UK across six days a week, some 36 million delivery points, sets it apart from potential competitors and means that serving public interest is still a primary function of the company. Though investment and revenue are serious concerns and Royal Mail is ever more reliant on commercial business partners for financial security, this is a problem which will burden whoever takes over.
competition between post offices would be unfair to the public

The competition battle is already being lost. Companies who use the post as part of their business model are already choosing other providers. For example Amazon uses other delivery agents more extensively than before. The "cherry picking" of profitable clients has already begun. Rural areas can still be protected in a privatised system by legislating for this to happen in the way that utilities are regulated. As for individual Post Offices competing against each other, the network has be cut back so extensively in the last 10 years that there is a big distance between each outlet.
Democracies are more likely to be economically successful

There are several interrelated counter arguments to this. The first is simply to point out that the difference between North and South Korea is to do with their economic systems rather than one being a democracy. South Korea is Capitalist while North Korea is Stalinist and centrally planned (and obviously not very well centrally planned either!). There is no real reason to believe that a democracy protects the foundation of a free market better than an authoritarian regime. One of the principle foundations of the free market is property rights, however a democracy leads to regular changes in the political leadership so may well be more likely to have some governments that infringe property rights. An authoritarian regime on the other hand can guarantee property rights over a long period so long as it has built up the necessary trust. While democracies have a better record of upholding the rule of law this does not help if the laws themselves are anti business; as would likely be the case in a less developed democracy dominated by agricultural labourers. Korea and Taiwan are good examples of authoritarian states that have provided the necessary stability for the economy to thrive.[Pranab Bardhan, Democracy and Development: A Complex Relationship http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/macarthur/inequality/papers/BardhanDemoc.pdf%5D%5D The main link between being a democracy leading to being economically successful is that democracies are more likely to follow the group interest when deciding on what protectionist policies to use and when to be free market whereas authoritarian regimes tend to be oligarchic and have power concentrated in the power of the few so they in turn try to concentrate wealth in their own hands so pursue economic policies that waste resources by lining their own pockets. In cases where the democracy pursues disastrous economic policies there is a good chance that the democracy will turn into an authoritarian regime such as the Weimar republic.