BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Advocates of privatization overestimate performance of accounts.

Eliot Spitzer. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. February 4th, 2009: "Furthermore, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, the would-be privatizers make incredible—even impossible—assumptions about the likely performance of the market to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. According to Krugman, their worldview would require the price-earnings ratio in the market to be around 70 to 1 by midcentury. That would make the market at the height of the last bubble look grossly undervalued. Their performance numbers simply do not work."
Social Security allows retirees to draw on own investments.

James Roosevelt, President & CEO Tufts Health Plan. "Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. August 11, 2010: "And those "baby boomers" who are going to bust Social Security when the retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own. That fact is conveniently forgotten by the critics."
Private social security accounts are voluntary.

Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."
Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.

We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.
Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security.

Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts."
Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.

"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune: "The problem is that the system is unsustainable, as should be evident with the impending retirement of 70 million baby boomers - brought to you by smaller corps of younger workers who will be taxed to the gills to pay for it. Consider this: In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was divided between 42 workers. Now we're approaching the point where the cost of each retiree will be divided between only two workers. That is bound to put enormous strain on those workers. The real trouble begins in 2016 when - according to the experts - more will be going out in benefits than coming in as payroll taxes."
Direct democracy generally only works on a small scale.

Direct democracy works on a small system. For example, the Athenian Democracy governed a city of, at its height, about 30,000 eligible voters (free adult male citizens.) Town meetings, a form of local government once common in New England, has also worked well, often emphasizing consensus over majority rule. The use of direct democracy on a larger scale has historically been more difficult, however. It requires intricate communication and information-campaigns, all which are expensive, complicated, and prone to break-downs of various kinds.
Unorganized minorities are vulnerable in direct democracy

James Boyle. "The initiative and referendum: its folly, fallacies, and failure." (1912): "Not only is the Initiative and Referendum a game of dice against the unorganized majority but it is a cruel handicap and an eternal danger to unorganized minorities who are dumb and helpless against others of their fellow citizens who are organized and are possibly not as considerate of the rights of others as they ought to be. One of the glorious advantages of the Representative system is that it tends to protect the rights of the otherwise helpless minorities No system of government is truly democratic which does not do that."
Nothing wrong about NIMBYism through initiatives.

The people are right when they oppose a policy in their neighbourhood that would worsen their quality of life. The politicians who advocate new nuclear power plants or motorways are usually unwilling to have them at their own back-garden; why should the ordinary people be different? In summary, NIMBYism is beneficial for society because it prevents wrong decisions made by people who wouldn't have to carry the burden of living in a particular area.
Rep democracy produces un-representative leaders.

Individuals elected to office in a representative democracy tend not to be demographically representative of their constituency. They tend to be wealthier and more educated, and are also more predominantly male as well as members of the majority race, ethnic group, and religion than a random sample would produce. They also tend to be concentrated in certain professions, such as lawyers. Elections by district may reduce, but not eliminate, those tendencies, in a segregated society. Direct democracy would be inherently representative, assuming universal suffrage (where everyone can vote).
Many founding fathers believed in government by the people

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Men by their makeup are naturally divided into two camps: those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of higher classes; and those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them the safest and most honest, if not always the wisest repository of the public interest. These two camps exist in every country, and wherever men are free to think, speak, and write, they will identify themselves."[7]
Direct democracy lacks accountability of decision-making.

One of the key pillars of democracy is accountability for decisions that are made. Such accountability exists in a representative democracy, where an elected representative that passes a bill will face the consequences or rewards of the outcome. The voters can vote against the leader in the subsequent election, and generally take actions that hold the leader to account. In a direct democracy of course, conversely, the broad base of voters cannot be held to account for any bad decisions they collectively make.
Direct democracy helps check political class

Politicians are the victims of many things: be it their selfish interest (or bias) which may result in rearing to corruption, or just the pressure that rich and well-organized interest groups exert to persuade the politician that it is in his electorate's interest to pass (or vote down) the legislature in a move which is in all actuality detrimental to the majority of his voters (see a book by Fareed Zakaria Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad). That means that often the politicians do not represent the people of the electorate, and thus act in contradiction to democracy. Direct democracy places a check on these shortcomings.
American founders favored rep democracy over direct dem

Direct democracy was mainly opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy, and gave the Congress sole legislative authority in the first article of the Constitution: "All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which should consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."[8]
Citizens are competent enough to make good policy

As Lupia and Mc Cubbins argue, voters do not necessarily need perfect information to make reasonable decisions. They can rely on information shortcuts and cues - and even if they are sometimes affected by their emotions their decisions do not have to be worse than the politicians' ones. As an example we can look to Switzerland where direct democracy works perfectly well as the people are able to decide even on complex issues regarding taxes or other "complicated" policies.
Direct democracy over-simplifies policies to a "yes/no" vote.

In a representative democracy, laws in the parliamentary bodies undergo a lot of scrutiny, repeated rewritings, curbings, mitigations and other checks that in the end, the law that is passed is usually okay on principle with most of the representatives. These represent all kinds of voters -- and indeed, a democratic decision is one that implements the majority decision while keeping all minority rights, even though the result of that may be a little hard to read. However, direct democracy and its means (mostly referenda) need simplification (commonly to yes/no questions). As a result, most things passed by measures of direct democracy are unbalanced and that very often, measures of direct democracy contribute to majority rule without any respect for the minority.
Direct democracy is relatively cheap

John F. Knutsen. "Direct Democracy." 1993: "One objection to widespread use of direct democracy concerns its alleged high direct costs. According to Kendall and Louw (Kendall, 1989, page 135), the Swiss Federal chancellery estimates the costs of a national initiative combined with a federal counterproposal to about 1 Swiss franc per voter. Even when special ballots have to be held to decide single issues, the costs are modest. In California such a special ballot was held in 1973. It cost the state about USD 20 million, or about 80 cents (USD 0.80) per capita. (Walker, page 93). In addition to the direct costs incurred by the government, comes the costs associated with launching an initiative. In Switzerland this cost is estimated to at least one franc per petition signature (Junker, page 122). In California initiative campaigns cost several million dollars. In per capita terms however, these costs are still marginal, which is why this method of making decisions is so effective. Even if we assume that the Swiss spend a few million francs (everything included) on national issues every year, this has to be compared with a Swiss federal budget of about 23 billion francs (1985) (Junker, page 40)."
Opponents cannot amend/refine bills in direct democracy

James Boyle. "The initiative and referendum: its folly, fallacies, and failure." (1912): "the modern Initiative is far inferior in principle to the ancient Pure Democracy for the latter theoretically anyhow possessed the principle of majority rule.[...] The authority to formulate a law is equal to the power to pass it if the latter power does not include the right to change it or amend it before it is passed. Therefore under the Initiative and Referendum the majority 92 or 95 per cent find themselves in this predicament they must either accept the bill which the 8 per cent has drafted for them on its own motion and without consulting any other authority or proportion of citizens. The majority must either do this or they must succumb to Philosophic Anarchism, the absence of any Law except that of the individual will."
Campaigns for ballot measures often have unfair resource advantages

"Competing groups in a referendum do not necessarily possess equality in the resources which they have at their disposal and this may give one side an unfair advantage over the other in putting its case across to the electorate. This problem is accentuated if the government contributes to the financing of one side's campaign, as occured in the early stages of the 1995 Irish referendum on divorce." ("Teach Yourself: Politics", Peter Joyce)
Direct democracy disables unpopular but necessary decisions.

The problem with direct democracy is that the general public can hardly ever think about the issues at hand in the long-term. People may be aware of the fact that something needs to be done about some burning issue, however, they are unwilling to propose any plan if it entails some discomfort to them. An example of this is called NIMBYism: "Not In My Backyard" point of view. In practise it occurs when a broadly necessary thing, such as wind-turbines, are rejected "in my back-yard" due to selfish interests. Elected leaders can help push these kinds of necessary decisions through.
Measures that encourage saving help stimulate the economy

It is often claimed that tax rebates for the middle and lower classes are good for the economy because they go toward spending rather to savings. But this assumes a false view of savings. If someone deposits money in their savings account at a bank, the bank is infused with more cash to lend out, which stimulates the economy. And, savers frequently save by investing, which stimulates capital flows, economic growth, and job creation.
Millions of low-income Americans face undernutrition.

Millions of low-income Americans face undernutrition technically termed food insecurity. Food insecurity means inconsistent access to enough nutritious food at all times during the year. Food insecurity can lead to health problems, particularly for infants and toddlers.Even mild to moderate undernutrition in young children is linked to problems that last throughout the lifespan. The federal Food Stamp Program protects low-income Americans of all ages from food insecurity and the more severe condition of hunger by helping them to purchase an adequate diet. Over 25 million Americans rely on Food Stamp benefits to supplement their food budget. About 20 million of those recipients live in households with children. The Food Stamp Program has been shown to be effective and efficient
Tax Rate Cuts, Not Tax Rebates, Stimulate the Economy

Although tax rebates, increased unemployment benefits and other short-term payments may feel good and appear superficially attractive, they do very little to actually boost the economy and improve Americans' well-being. Rather, cutting tax rates, not mailing tax rebates, is what stimulates prosperity. This is a critical distinction. The primary reason why tax rebates don't work is that they merely redistribute existing wealth, as opposed to creating new economic growth or encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship. They do nothing to encourage risk-taking, investment or enlargement of the wealth pie, but instead re-slice the existing pie in a zero-sum manner.
Tax rebates don't encourage wealth production

Tax rebates are a cash give-away. There is nothing in them that increases incentives for workers to be more productive; whether they work hard or not, they will still be receiving the same tax rebate. Tax-cuts, on the other hand, incentivize increased productivity by creating a dynamic in which, if workers put in more hours and earn more money, they will be able to keep more of that money, instead of paying it away in taxes.
Extended unemployment benefits help bolster confidence/spending

Unemployment benefits are a critical backdrop for employed individuals. If their unemployment benefits are low, they may feel that it is important that they hedge against any possible risks of future unemployment by spending less and saving more. This is not stimulating for the economy. If unemployment benefits are increased, employed individuals will feel more confident in their decisions to spend money now, even if it does so happen that they are laid-off in the future; the extended unemployment benefits will still keep them secure. Therefore, UI provides a boost of confidence to workers in their choice to spend money and help stimulate the economy.
Tax rebates to the lower-middle classes quickly stimulate consumption

- Rebates put money into the hands of the lower and middle classes, who are more likely to spend their money on services or consumer goods. This is precisely the kind of economic kick that is needed in the economy. In addition, it is necessary for this money to be infused into the economy fast. Tax rebates to the lower and middle classes achieve this, since these groups are more likely to spend the money fast. Therefore, a tax rebate to the lower and middle classes is well targeted.
Tax rebates encourage irresponsible consumer spending habits

This is particularly true in Bush's 2008 stimulus package, which aims to give a tax rebate to the lower and middle classes specifically because these classes are more likely to capriciously spend the money on consumer goods. Yet, given the debt-laden financial circumstances of the lower and middle classes, they should be using this money to pay down debts or simply should be saving the money. Therefore, the stimulus from a tax rebate depends directly on lower and middle-class consumers spending irresponsibly. Exploiting irresponsible behavior should not be the aim of economic stimulus packages.
Unemployment insurance does not stimulate the economy

- Few studies indicate that extending unemployment benefits helps stimulate the economy. Why this is the case is fairly straightforward. While it may be true that extended unemployment benefits makes some existing workers more confident that they can spend freely and still have a good safety net, those that are in the safety net of unemployment insurance feel too comfortable, and may not quickly search for new jobs. At the same time, employers use UI to hold together laid-off workers without paying them in times of low demand, waiting until things get better to finally re-hire workers. If UI is extended, employers will wait longer to re-hire laid-off workers they have on-hold with UI. Finally, UI has a fairly indirect link with consumption, attempting to stimulate confidence instead of providing a direct, sustainable infusion of cash to spend.
Bush's 2001 tax rebate succeeded in stimulating the economy

Numerous sources indicate that, in 2001, the rebates Bush provided of $300 to individuals and $600 to families had a significant impact on the economy. Various sources indicate that between 1/3 and 2/3 of the total rebate was spent in the first six months of the stimulus. Numerous sources indicate that the recession that year was relatively mild due to these steps, and could have been much worse otherwise. While the recession began in March it was over by November, even despite the September 11th attacks of that year.
Ecotourism is good for the human soul and social health.

While much emphasis in this debate is placed on the environmental pros and cons, it is important to consider the benefits to humans and society in general from these kinds of activities. When a human enters a forest or sees a breath-taking landscape, if often changes their perspective on life for the better. This is good for the individual and for those that interact with the individual. Cumulatively, it is good for society.
Ecotourism is just "green-washing" for profit

The tourism industry realizes that its consumers like to see that their tours are environmentally friendly, at least in name. Indeed, the problem is that most "ecotourism" is in name only. Consumers seem willing to accept the title of "ecotourism" without scrutinizing the impact of their tours. "Ecotourism", for example, is sometimes used by tourism companies to describe a drive through the wilderness. Therefore, the term "ecotourism" is being abused by companies to give a false impression of what is "green".
Recruiters are necessary element of all-volunteer force

An all volunteer military must recruit to keep up its numbers. The army, navy and air force need well-educated and motivated recruits so that they can defend our country from its enemies. Visits to schools are not about forcing militaristic propaganda on children, but about making sure that 16-18 year olds know about the military as a possible career choice. After all, college representatives and local employers are allowed to make presentations to students, so it would be unfair to keep just the military out. If you accept that we need armed forces, then you must allow them to recruit openly.
The military has a compelling story to tell to youth.

Recruiters should not minimise the risks of a military career, but the armed forces do have a good story to tell and they should not be prevented from doing so. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing.
Military is different than other career-field recruiting.

Washington Truth in Recruiting: "Military service is categorically different from other career choices. Eight year contract. Non cancellable, one-sided. 24 hour’s a day. Breakdown and rebuilding of personality in boot camp lasts a lifetime. Regimentation for total obedience. Surrender of civil rights. Degree of risk of death and injury. Moral component of killing - most victims are civilians. Moral component of war - most wars are over oil and resources and beliefs, not defense of U.S. territory. The military is categorically different from a 'career' and does not belong in high school career centers."
Military should not be able to collect info on students.

US military recruitment in schools has a very sinister side. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, military recruiters collect data on 30 million students. A huge database contains their personal details, including social security numbers, email addresses and academic records. The purpose of this is to allow recruiters to pester young people with messages, phone calls and home visits. This itself is bad enough, but many people think the government should not be trusted with so much personal information. Isn’t it police states that want to keep files on all their citizens?
Young people aren't stupid, understand risk of joining military.

In fact the media usually focuses on the bad news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring the good work of our military there. A career in the military also offers young people a lot of benefits, and it is only right that they should get to hear about those as well. And no one is signed up on the spot in the classroom; they always get the chance to think about it over a few months or more, and to discuss the decision carefully with parents.
Military recruiters have unprecedented access in schools.

Michael Berg. "Military Recruiters Have Unrivaled Access to Schools." The State. February 23rd, 2005: "military recruitment efforts are omnipresent inside our public schools. Recruiters walk freely around high school cafeterias in uniforms and talk to students. They hang posters on the school walls. They loiter in the parking lots. A recent Richland 1 career fair for eighth graders, held at Fort Jackson, had those representing careers other than the military confined behind tables and answering three short questions, while military personnel operated in groups wandering around, intercepting and talking to children at will."