BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Arming the police makes communities feel safer

Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day.[1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this.[2] The sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked. People feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.  [1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html, accessed 20 September 2011 [2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)
PSBs provide quality and original content that can cater for niche or commercially unattractive market segments

Commercial broadcasters have to directly interact with their audience to ensure that the programming being provided is what the public actually wants to consume. Commercial broadcasters have to pull in audiences whereas the (partly) publicly funded PSBs have a financial safety net which allows them to push content onto the audience in an elitist manner and allows them to essentially tell their audience what is good for them. It is also erroneous to suggest that minority tastes are not served by commercial broadcasters. Technology has allowed for a greater number of broadcast channels and as a result many of these specialize to cater for particular niches, for example, The History Channel.
PSBs bring nations and people together and are an actively positive force within the mediasphere

PSBs are a thing of the past. People no longer sit around the Television together. Commercial broadcasters provide more cultural freedom and choice for people. The idea of TV bringing a nation together no longer holds any merit in fragmented globalizing media markets where individualism dominates. TV is now more often than not a solitary experience rather than a communal one. This can be demonstrated by the amount of TV sets owned per household. A marketing report from Nielsen shows that in 1980 49% of US households had only 1 TV set and that 15% had three or more. Compare that with data from 2010 and only 17% of people in the US own only 1 TV set whereas 55% have 3 or more.[1] [1] Nielsen (2010) U.S. Homes Add Even More TV Sets in 2010. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-homes-add-even-more-tv-sets-in-2010/
PSB are better equipped than private broadcasters to air accurate, objective and impartial information and programming

The same could be said equally about PSBs. They are unlikely to broadcast items which may damage their funding stream. In the case of networks using the underwriting model they are also unlikely to broadcast things which underwriters do not approve of. Due to the fragmented and competitive broadcasting market place there will always be a home for programming which challenges businesses and other entities if there is enough public interest in the given issue.
The relationship between governments and PSBs can be problematic

It is true that government should not be allowed a monopoly over broadcasting, but that is very rare outside totalitarian states. Usually countries have at least one privately owned broadcasting network competing with the public media and so limiting political manipulation by the State. In addition, corporatization, as with the BBC in the UK, or CBC in Canada, sets the broadcaster up as accurate and impartial, allowing for the benefits of public ownership without the risk of political interference. Instead, the greatest risk of bias lies within a purely private broadcasting sector, where the high costs of entry and technological development encourage consolidation to the point where powerful individuals, such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, can manipulate the broadcast agenda in their own interests. Without the balance guaranteed by public service media, meaningful participation by all citizens in the social and political lives of their societies and fair elections might become impossible.
Privatising PSBs would improve the efficiency of their operations and the quality of their programming

PSBs are already exposed to competition as their audience figures are compared with those of their private rivals, and they constantly have to justify the level of their license fee or subsidy. Outsourcing most actual program making, as the BBC does, provides a competitive environment in which costs can be controlled effectively. Nor does public ownership prevent organizations from raising money - government bodies often resort to bond issues to fund investment. The BBC has successfully launched BBC Worldwide and developed a profitable commercial arm while remaining a public corporation.
PSBs funding sources give them an unfair advantage in the broadcasting market, harming competition.

Public ownership of broadcasting is good for the citizen/consumer, as it is free once your license fee or taxes have been paid. With the erosion of advertising revenues streams, private broadcasting companies are seeking to make popular programming (such as sports events, concerts or films) subscription based, a trend which risks excluding poorer audiences and threatens social cohesion. Nor is it in the interest of current private broadcasters to see their public rivals privatized and forced to accept advertising, as the overall increase in advertising space would drive down the amount broadcasters could charge advertisers for a spot, reducing their revenues and profits.
PSBs provide quality and original content that can cater for niche or commercially unattractive market segments

PSBs create unique content which private broadcasters would be unable to produce as they strive for mass market appeal to satisfy the demands placed upon them by commercial interests looking to purchase advertising. PSBs create more educational and minority output which enriches society rather than just entertaining it. PSBs can concentrate on creating high quality programming across all genres rather than simply producing mediocre populist programming such as low-cost game shows and reality TV. For example it is unlikely that commercial broadcasters would have aired nightly university lectures as the BBC did with its partnership with the Open University. PSBs are usually among the highest investors in the domestic content industries and nurture local creative talent.
PSBs bring nations and people together and are an actively positive force within the mediasphere

As well as airing programming for minorities which the private broadcasters would not provide,  by providing and presenting content in a manner that resonates with the society in which they operate and by offering universal and affordable access to such content (see definition in the introduction) PSBs can also help  bring people together and thus promote social cohesion. PSBs are able to put people and society first before financial and commercial interests. For example the BBC in its 2005 “Building Public Value” report states that it “aims to serve its audiences not just as consumers, but as members of a wider society, with programmes and services which, while seeking to inform, educate and entertain audiences, also serve wider public purposes”.[1] [1] BBC (2005) Building Public Value. [online] [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/policies/pdf/bpv.pdf
PSB are better equipped than private broadcasters to air accurate, objective and impartial information and programming

Advertising limits the types of programming and stories commercial networks will run as they may fear losing lucrative advertising deals with large corporations. As PSBs do not rely (solely) on advertising they are more likely to air programming which is critical towards the practices of large corporations and serve the public interest. For example, In August 2011, PBS aired Food Inc., a documentary that ‘lifted the veil on (the US’) food industry…exposing the underbelly that’s hidden from the American consumer with the consent of (the) government’s regulatory agencies’.[1] [1] PBS (2011). “Food, Inc. – Synopsis”. [Accessed 6th September, 2011]. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/
The relationship between governments and PSBs can be problematic

The broadcast media has so much power to form opinion that it is dangerous to give politicians too much influence over it. Once in government, a political party can use public ownership and control of television and radio stations to manipulate both the news agenda and its editorial policy - as many Middle-East regimes did during the 2011 Arab Spring. For example in Egypt, during sustained and substantial protests aimed at removing President Hosni Mubarak from office the state run media described protestors as “... ‘Vandals’ and ‘hooligans’. A few hours after Mubarak’s fall, the ‘vandalisers’ had become ‘heroes’, and what [they] had previously described as ‘chaos instigated by foreign powers’ had suddenly become ‘a glorious revolution.’”[1] [1] Diab, O. (2011) New Egypt, New Media. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/10/egypt-media-newspapers-mubarak-propaganda
Privatising PSBs would improve the efficiency of their operations and the quality of their programming

Privatization would be good for public broadcasters, exposing them to the bracing impact of proper competition and forcing them to focus more effectively upon their strengths while producing efficiencies. When it was privatized, it was expected that New Jersey Public Television could save the state $11million a year.[1] Freed from government control, they would be less exposed to political decisions about the level of license fee or direct subsidy, and better able to raise finance in the capital markets. This would allow them to compete internationally in the changing digital marketplace, developing commercial operations, and ploughing increased profits back into better program making for their domestic market. [1] McGlone, Penny. (2011) “N.J. public television to undergo name change, cuts in staff”. The Star-Ledger, 7 June 2011. [Accessed 23 August 2011] Available at:  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/nj_public_television_getting_n.html
PSBs funding sources give them an unfair advantage in the broadcasting market, harming competition.

Public ownership of the media distorts competition, harming private companies in their domestic marketplace and their ability to compete internationally. It does this because the government is funding a service that could be supplied profitably by the private sector - for example, a pop music radio station or the broadcast of sporting events. The market share of private companies inevitably suffers, along with their ability to raise advertising revenue based upon the size of their audience. This means that private broadcasters end up with less money to spend on their programmes and are less well placed to compete internationally. James Murdoch, son of the medal mogul Rupert Murdoch, in his MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival in 2009 echoed this opinion stating that the free news output by the BBC “"threatens the provision of news in Britain".[1] [1] The Independent (2009) The BBC’s Unhealthy Dominance. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-bbcs-unhealthy-dominance-1778976.html
Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally

With about 40% of Basotho people living below the international poverty line[1], Lesotho needs urgent help both from the economic and social perspective. A third of the population is infected with HIV and in urban areas; about 50% of the women under 40 have the virus.[2] There is a major lack of funding and corruption in the system is halting any progress. The Kingdom of Lesotho is clearly unable to deal with its issues and should be annexed by SA. Annexation is the only way in which the SA government is going to care about this enclave territory. Give Basotho citizenship and the right to vote in elections and they will be taken into consideration. Give SA the power to control and they will assume the responsibility for pulling the Basotho out of poverty, giving them a better social system and a country in which they can thrive. A simple look at the GDP per capita of each state shows the potential benefit to Lesotho and ability of SA to deliver. While Lesotho is stable at $1,700 per capita, SA has a GDP of $10,700 per person. Only by giving them full responsibility of the territory, the SA government is going to step in and make the necessary change. [1] Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Project, http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf [2] The World Factbook, ‘Lesotho’, cia.gov, 11 March 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/lt.html
South Africa will gain influence, stability and a better image on the international stage

Bringing South Africa and Lesotho will benefit SA on the global stage. The move would be one to provide aid to a smaller state and provide stability. The dire conditions for the Basotho people are acknowledged by the UN and the Africa Union. Firstly, SA, by the annexation of Lesotho, will prove good intentions in creating a sustainable Sub-Saharan Africa. This will ultimately create a better image and a greater influence in the region if they choose to respond positively to the People’s Charter Movement in Lesotho[1], a social structure pleading for annexation. The movement, driven by trade unions, has collected 30,000 signatures in favor of their goal and is rising in popularity. Secondly the annexation will provide a boost for the South African Development Community and South African Customs Union by demonstrating the willingness of South Africa to integrate with poorer neighbours and take on some of the responsibility for them. [1] Smith, 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/06/lesotho-independence-south-africa
Annexation is not needed where there is already extensive cooperation between the countries

Lesotho and South Africa already cooperate on a wide variety of issues. If we look at the example of the law system; the two systems are almost the same and all but one of the Justices on the Court of Appeal in Lesotho are South African jurists.[1] Moreover, there are at least four inter-governmental organizations that maximize the trade, help and social connections between the two states. Starting with the African Union, going on to the Southern African Development Community[2] that promotes socio-economic cooperation as well as political and security cooperation, moving to the Southern African Customs Union[3] and the Common Monetary Area. Lesotho is not only helped by SA but this is happening without them having to let go of their national identity and history. In much the same way as different nations, large and small, benefit from the EU so the countries of Southern Africa can benefit from some integration without the negative consequences of complete annexation with the loss of control that would bring. [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘Lesotho (10/07)’, state.gov, http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/lesotho/94961.htm [2] Southern African Development Community Official website http://www.sadc.int [3] ‘Continued economic reforms would attract more foreign investment’, World Trade Organisation, 25 April 2003, http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp213_e.htm
A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho

With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory.[1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa[2]; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3] [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011, http://www.leader.co.za/article.aspx?s=1&f=1&a=2893 [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/lesotho-leads-southern-africa-democracy [3]  ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009, http://www.citypress.co.za/news/angry-king-dalindyebo-seeks-independent-state-20091223/
It is not in the interest of South Africa to annex a poor, underdeveloped country

It is not in South Africa’s interests to annex Lesotho. Lesotho would be a burden; it is poor, might cause instability, and has no resources as compensation. On a simple cost-benefit analysis made by the SA government they would clearly see they would have more responsibility towards the Basotho population but new resources to fulfil those responsibilities. South Africa has its own problems that it should be focusing on first. Poverty is officially at 52.3%[1] and unemployment is a great problem for South Africans; a quarter of the majority black workforce is unemployed.[2]Moreover, Only 40.2% of black infants live in a home with a flush toilet, a convenience enjoyed by almost all their white and Indian counterparts showing the inequality that still exists in the ‘rainbow nation’.[3] Why add more people under your protection when you can’t take care of your own? [1] ‘Statement by Minister in The Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Collins Chabane, on the occasion of the launch of the Development Indicators 2012 Report’, thepresidency.gov.za, 20 August 2013, http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=15921&t=79 [2]  Mcgroarty, Patrick, ‘Poverty Still Plagues South Africa's Black Majority’, The Wall Street Journal, 8 December 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579246300838033732 [3] Kielburger, Craig & Marc, ‘Why South Africa is Still Dealing With Segregation and Poverty’, Huffington Post, 18 December 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/craig-and-marc-kielburger/post-apartheid-south-africa_b_4460819.html
Annexation will allow the free movement of Basotho people, goods and services

While the ability of Basotho people to travel abroad is something that we should take into consideration, we should also seek to understand the SA government intention to secure their territory. As a sovereign state that is primarily responsible towards its citizens, SA has the right and the duty to secure its borders in order to prevent any kind of security problems that might occur when people from a poor, underdeveloped country like Lesotho try to enter their premises. If SA is concerned about the security of its border with Lesotho how much less secure is it when the border disappears? On the other hand, progress regarding border control is already being made through bilateral cooperation and agreements. [1] Certainly, there are less drastic solutions, such as border-unions that permit the exact same advantages as annexation when it comes to borders. [1] Magubane, Khulekani, ‘SA, Lesotho to ease border control’, Business Day Live, 22 April 2013, http://www.bdlive.co.za/africa/africannews/2013/04/22/sa-lesotho-to-ease-border-control
The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa

The Basotho people existed as a separate state for decades before colonization. There was a separate Basotho identity long before the instauration of the apartheid in SA. Their history and roots gives Lesotho an identity that is different from that of their only neighbors. That Lesotho never suffered under apartheid is in itself a big difference from South Africa where the legacy still looms large. Lesotho has taken measures to highlight their differences from South Africa; In 2013 Lesotho introduced national identification documents.[1] [1] Tefo, Tefo, ‘Lesotho finally introduces national ID’, Public Eye, 5 July 2013,http://publiceye.co.ls/?p=2932
Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally

There is no guarantee that the SA government will indeed try to make a change after the integration of the Lesotho territory. The narrative is quite different in Europe for example where regions like Catalonia, Venice and Scotland are trying to secede because they do not feel the national government is addressing their problems as they should. Even if we agree that SA is the most powerful country in Sub-Saharan region and that they have more money that the Kingdom of Lesotho, there is no certainty that the money will be redirected toward that region. SA already has a lot of problems of its own.
South Africa will gain influence, stability and a better image on the international stage

While any annexation would be mutually agreed there is no guarantee that the whole international community would see it positively; any resistance from groups within Lesotho and it could be a PR nightmare. Moreover the spin of it being a humanitarian gesture is reliant on it following through and improving conditions. If it succeeds then SA will likely be called upon to resolve other humanitarian situations in the region such as in Swaziland.
Annexation is not needed where there is already extensive cooperation between the countries

Assuming the two countries are so well integrated, there should be no reason for not taking the last step that is the annexation of the territory. Furthermore, the current sovereignty of the Kingdom of Lesotho exists as a fiction rather than reality. The authorities are not able to provide and take care of the basic human needs of their people; there was a humanitarian crisis as recently as 2012 when a third of the population needed food aid after flooding.[1] Lesotho does not even have control over its own defence with South Africa having launched a military ‘humanitarian intervention’ in 1998 to save democracy but which was also about South African concerns over water.[2] Rather than permitting for the local government to loose its authority, annexation represents the short step towards real and sustainable development for the land-locked country.   [1] Beukes, Suzanne, ‘Food crisis aggravates the already massive social challenges Lesotho faces’, unicef, 28 November 2012, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/lesotho_66489.html [2] Hedebe, Siyabonga Patrick, ‘South Africa’s Military intervention in Lesotho in 1998 – A critical overview’, academia.edu, http://www.academia.edu/1330315/South_African_military_intervention_in_Lesotho_-_A_critical_overview