BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals can be used to enhance the quality of human life

Activities involving the hunting or performance of animals are often large scale social activities. The Grand National for example has an audience of 153,000 paying spectators at the event[1] and a further 600 million in 140 countries watch it on television.[2] They can invoke themes of struggle and competition that serve to bring communities together in a shared experience. [1] Pwc, ‘Attendances rise at UK’s biggest annual sporting events’, 4 August 2011. [2] Aintree, ‘Broadcasting the Grand National’.
The use of animals in sport demeans humans

This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other.  If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’.  Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant.  Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world.  We should respect this instinctive moral reaction.[1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.
Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation

In the case of foxes, most of the alternative ways of killing them are crueler - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by hounds dies very quickly. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modern farms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm, as many examples of secret filming (Warning: may find disturbing) in abattoirs show far more cruelty than you see on your standard deer or rabbit hunt. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm.
Treating animals as property prevents them from being perceived as part of the moral community

“Specieism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.”[1] Conflating specieism with racism or sexism is fallacious because it fails to recognise that the former involves fundamental differences, whereas all people regardless of skin colour or gender are ‘human beings’.   As animals are incapable of moral enquiry they can never acquire rights beyond those that humans choose to bestow on them. [1] C. Cohan (1986) The case of the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No 14.
Animals are harmed when used as objects of entertainment, no matter how innocent that entertainment is

The circus is where children first learn to love animals! The proposition is right to draw attention to issues of animal welfare but again, they do not need to take such an extremist approach. There is evidence that animals enjoy performing and can form close relationships with their trainers and with an audience. Closer scrutiny of circuses and better enforcement of animal welfare laws are desirable, but once those conditions are met the circus can be seen as a celebration of wild animals and the relationships they can form with animal-loving human beings. If the reality falls short of this ideal then reform is called for, not abolition. We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting the animal welfare case at its strongest, we should ban all sports in which animals are treated cruelly, or are at high risk of injury or death. None of the sports mentioned by the proposition here fall into that category. Anyone who works in horse- or dog-racing will tell you that it is in their interest to ensure that the animals are healthy and happy, or else they will not perform well. They will also tell you that most of these animals enjoy racing and enjoy winning. As for polo, horses are rarely injured; the risk of injury is acceptably low.
Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls

It is consistent to oppose both uses of the animal. Moreover, Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised (in Spain, Portugal, parts of France, Mexico, and, illegally, in the United States). The idea that there is a fair match between the bull and the matador is laughable. The bull dies at the end of every single bullfight (it is either killed by the matador or slaughtered afterwards if it survives); for a matador to be seriously injured is rare and it is very rare indeed for a matador to die as the result of a bull fight. During bull fights the animals are taunted and goaded, and have sharp spears stuck into their bodies until eventually they collapse from their injuries and exhaustion. Matadors are not heroes or artists, they are cruel cowards.
Forced education achieves little

UK statistics plainly show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education.”[1] [1] Zhu, Y., & Walker, I. Education, earnings and productivity: recent UK evidence, 2003, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/education_Mar...
Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment.

Practical Skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have vocational schools. For example the German system vocational schools, Berufsschulen, have been around since the 19th Century where students spent part of their time in vocational training in the school and part of their time as apprentices, these are attended until at least the age of 18.[1] It is possible for Schooling to be flexible while still continuing to 18. [1]  Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany London, ‘Education’, 2011, http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/06/Study/Education__seit...
There are cases where leaving school early is necessary

Leaving school early is not necessary. Simply in a few cases there is a need for more government intervention in order to make sure that everyone is able to afford to remain in school up to the age of 18. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is all the more reason to teach them the basics that they have failed to grasp for two more years. There could also be some exceptions as in the British system where there are exemptions for under-18s who are caring for parents or relatives, and for teenage mothers.[1] [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1292132...
More education brings more opportunities

More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers. The impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end - that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old. The UK has recently raised the school leaving age to 18 for the same reasons.[1] [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1292132...
Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future

Doing so increases the economic potential of the future workforce, and so will bring increased tax revenues in the long term to more than cover any initial costs. Although some countries would experience a more dramatic change than others, it is worth noting that in many states a very large majority of young people voluntarily stay in education beyond the end of compulsory schooling (e.g. France, Germany and Japan). In the UK 84 per cent of pupils in year 10 stated that they had intentions to stay on in further education.[1] If these countries can already bear the extra cost without economic collapse, it should be possible for others to cope as well. [1] Office for National Statistics. Social Trends. 2009, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social_Trends39/Social_Trends_39.pdf, ch 3
Raising the school learning age promotes equal opportunities

Ensuring everyone gets educated for the same amount of time at school should promote equality. Currently early-school leaving is linked with other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage, such as low-income jobs or high unemployment. More importantly parents who left school young and as a consequence have lower-grade occupations are more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16)[1]. Forcing all children to stay in school longer could break this cycle of disadvantage.[2] [1] Ibid, ch 3 [2] RTE News, ‘Early school leavers earn lower wages’, 2009, http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0513/esri.html
Forced education achieves little

Unfortunately just being in school does not guarantee that a student is learning. If they lack aptitude, ability or interest the extra time in the classroom is likely to benefit them very little, especially when they have not chosen to be there. It also poses a sharp divide on the question of disruptive children. If they are excluded from school their disadvantage is extended over more years while if they are included, they damage the education of others in their class for even longer. As Henry Phibbs argues “Increasing the school-leaving age will not result in more being learned – just more broken windows in the locality of the school. Children fed up with school need an escape route, not an extension of their sentence.”[1] [1] Phibbs, H., ‘Let them leave school at 14’, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/education-youngpeople
Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment.

Practical skills (for example carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on-the-job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both routes place young people into contact with professionals in the field as well as giving them access to a wider range of tools and materials than could possibly be available in schools. For many young people who would like to work in these areas extra years at school will merely be time ‘treading water’ before they can get on with learning the skills of their trade. This is even more alarming in the case of the UK with the new tuition fees for universities, which are likely to decrease the chances of certain socio-economic categories of going to university at all.
There are cases where leaving school early is necessary

Working early can be an advantage in some circumstances. Many families need their children to make an economic contribution to the family income, often for example on a farm or in a family business. Working early can help these families to survive. Similarly unqualified individuals can gain equality or even an advantage over their qualified peers by having a few years’ work-experience ‘on-the-shop-floor’. If they are forced to stay in school as long as their peers they lose this advantage. Recognizing this, the British government introduced 21,000 extra apprenticeships in 2009 in an attempt to ensure those who aren’t suited to school do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. (Lipsett, 2009)
More education brings more opportunities

This argument suggests that children whom Britain's state schools have failed to teach even to read and write should be compelled to stay at those schools for an extra two years. It will not suddenly bring new opportunities just because children are forced to sit in a classroom for longer. This is absurd. It is re-enforcing failure. It is an idea according to which, if climbing a mountain on your hands and knees does not work, then you should be made to go on doing it.[1] [1] Bartholomew, James, ‘Raising the school-leaving age would be crazy’, 2006, http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/archives/2006/12/raising_the_sch.php
Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future

The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. In many countries the number of students in the last two years of formal schooling would at least double, requiring a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. And this is just the direct cost - there are also potentially enormous indirect losses to the state in terms of the taxes and pension contributions which it currently receives from young workers but would forego if the school-leaving age was raised.
Persecution of homosexuals is morally wrong

There are many in Africa who believe that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and view the act as unnatural. Religious groups in particular oppose male homosexuality due to sodomy being viewed a sin[1]. If a certain act is viewed as a sin, and it is optional, then it is only logical that this activity should be prohibited under law. In a sense, it is moral to have laws restricting homosexuality in place via this logic.[2] The U.S. and other Western states should not condemn African states and reduce aid for legislating in a way they consider moral.  [1] Islam and Africa ‘Islam and Homosexuality’ [2] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12
Cutting aid could produce a change in policy direction

It is wrong for donors to attempt to change the policies of a sovereign state. Each state has equal rights, which include the right to be free from interference from any other group[1]. The West is therefore violating state sovereignty when they attempt to change domestic policies which they dislike[2]. African governments have a right to self-determination without the interference from the West; they are no longer colonies. [1] Political Realism in International Relations Karpowicz, K 02/04/13 [2] Quandzie,E. Anti-gay aid cut: Bring it on, Ghana tells UK 02/11/11
Western Money, Western Discretion

The international community has an obligation to help poorer countries, and cannot simply walk away from it over an issue such as this. Exploitation, through imperialism and other means, has been a major feature of Western relations with Africa. From colonial policies to current trade agreements the West has exploited Africa[1]. The West now has an obligation to compensate Africa for the damage which exploitation has done to development.  Aid is considered to be vital to ensuring national and international security to the world, removing donations could result in destabilisation as economic links between the government and people deteriorate[2]. [1] Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources, Stewart, H 10/05/13 [2] United Nations The 0.7% target: An in-depth look
There is not universal endorsement of full homosexual rights in the West

While there are those who oppose gay rights in the West, there are many which support them and government policy does not have to run along the lines of consensus constantly. 2013 saw victories for gay marriage in the UK with the royal assent of the Marriage (same sex couples) Act [1] and in the USA with the removal of key elements of DOMA by the Supreme Court[2]. Those who still oppose homosexual rights are becoming the political periphery in these Western states. The current legislative success demonstrates that unity on same-sex rights is growing, and that it is not hypocritical to export this to the international stage. [1] Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013’ Parliament of the United Kingdom 17/07/13 [2] US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage BBC 27/06/13
The reduction of aid will cause innocent people to suffer

Reducing funds is an unfortunate, although necessary, mechanism for pressurising the political elite to legalise homosexuality. Africa’s democracies, such as Nigeria, have to be sensitive to the needs of their citizens. Even dictatorships have to maintain a grasp on the people’s will. Once the African population starts to feel the impact of reduced aid, the only viable way to remedy the situation will be to re-legislate on the same-sex issue. Foreign aid struggles to reach those who need it the most anyway, with corruption in the Ugandan government (and the disappearance of £1.3 million) causing the UK to cut aid to Uganda in 2012[1]. The funding itself is then redirected away from African governments, but will reach those who need it the most through non-governmental organisations which will negate the suffering predicted by critics[2]. [1] BBC ‘UK cuts aid to Ugandan government’ 16/11/2012 [2] Gray,S. ‘Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations’ Pink News 22/11/2011
Cultural Imperialism

Cultural Imperialism has major advantages to it as well. Culture and identity has been used throughout history as a tool for fuelling the flames of conflict, leading to the mass genocides such as that of Rwanda[1]. This aspect of culture incites hatred against those who might otherwise not be targeted, such as homosexuals.[2] The desire to stamp out such attitudes does not represent a diminishment of African culture simply a change. Similar attitudes were held in the west until recently. African culture has similarly changed in the past; the comparatively recent introduction of Christianity to much of the continent (the exception being Ethiopia) was such a change. [1] RothKopf, D ‘In Praise of Cultural Imperialism’ in Foreign Policy, no. 107 (1997) pp.38-53 [2] Ibid
Persecution of homosexuals is morally wrong

From a moral perspective, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their sexuality. Everyone should have equal rights; Hilary Clinton stated that ‘gay rights are human rights’[1], the derogation of such rights is a serious moral affront. There is evidence that homosexuality is not optional[2]. Discriminating on sexual orientation is therefore the same as discriminating upon factors such as race and ethnicity. Even if changeable it would be the same as discrimination on the basis of identity or religion. Same sex relations are victimless which calls in to question whether it could ever be defined as something to be criminalised. Whilst some may point to male on male rape, these figures are low compared to male on female rape. In the U.S. where homosexuality is legal, only 9% of rape victims were male and only a small proportion of those being male on male[3]. Criminalising and institutionally embedding hatred against homosexuality has served to alienate many Africans from their families and communities[4]. Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is not something any donor would want to endorse even implicitly it is therefore morally right to cut the aid. [1] The Obama Administration’s Bold but Risky Plan to make Africa Gay-Friendly Corey-Boulet,R 07/03/12 [2] Kingman,S. ‘Nature, not nurture? New Studies suggest that homosexuality has a biological basis, determined more by genes and hormones than social factors or psychology, says Sharon Kingman. 04/10/1992 [3] Wikipedia Gender by rape [4] The Guardian Persecuted for being gay. 13 September 2011
Cutting aid could produce a change in policy direction

If the West did decide to reduce aid to African states it could pressure African states to change their policies on homosexuality. Africa is renowned for the dependency on aid. Analysts claim that this dependency negates the need for African economies to reform, relying instead on foreign governments and NGOs[1].  This reliance on aid could be exploited to alter policy within those African countries that are unable to act economically independently. This policy has been successful in the past. When Britain cut £19m to Malawi in 2011 for arresting two men for marrying; there was a reversal of government policy in the African state and all anti-homosexual laws were suspended[2]. The equality created by this policy change would allow greater access to retroviral drugs and other HIV/AIDS treatment for the gay community. Laws outlawing homosexuality, and the stigma of the false connection between HIV and homosexuality, have decreased the accessibility of the gay community to treatment[3]. Corrections to these laws, from the economic pressure of aid withdrawal, would allow those with HIV/AIDS in the gay community to seek help without fear of rejections or prosecution. [1] Astier,H.  Can aid do more harm than good? 1 February 2006 BBC [2] Karimi,F. ‘Amnesty: Malawi suspends anti-gay laws’ CNN 6 November 2012 [3] Anti-Gay discrimination fuels HIV/AIDS in Africa: Report  Reuters 01/03/07
Western Money, Western Discretion

When Western States threaten to cut aid, they are referring to their own money. This money should therefore be spent at the discretion of the donating country. In 2012, the USA’s and UK’s budgets for aid were £12.2 billion[1] and £9 billion respectively. The UK’s spending is set to increase to about £11.3 billion by 2014[2]. This is money which could be spent to ease economic hardships at home, as many newspapers have pointed out[3], however it is given to other countries to aid them instead. Donating states also spend a great deal of time attempting to convince their citizens that giving aid is a good use of their money. Should they oppose a policy which they see as discriminatory then it is understandable that they should use their discretion when donating aid. [1] Britain second in world for aid spending Dixon, H. 04/04/12 [2] Aid: how much does the UK spend, why it’s so important and how it works. Provost,C. & Tran,M. 20/03/13 [3] Britain leads the way in foreign aid-unfortunately Clark,R. 19/06/13
There is not universal endorsement of full homosexual rights in the West

The adoption of gay rights is by no means universal in the West, so why should Africa have to change their policies? US Christian evangelical groups have opposed the Obama administration’s policy towards homosexual rights in Africa. The Justice for Gay Africans campaign group claim that these groups have worsened hostility on the continent through action that they have taken in Africa[1]. Domestically there is opposition to gay rights as well. The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by a Democrat President and a Republican congress, enabled states to refuse to recognise same sex marriages[2] and demonstrates the opposition to gay rights in donor countries. One in six homosexuals and bisexuals have been the victims of hate crime in the UK, with only one in ten cases resulting in a conviction demonstrating homophobic attitudes in the UK[3]. The lack of consensus in the West therefore makes it hard to morally justify the imposition of homosexual rights abroad. [1] Gay Rights: Africa, the new frontier Chothia,F. 07/12/11 [2] Defence of Marriage Act [3] Ellison,G., Gammon,A. & Guasp,A.  ‘The Gay British Crime Survey 2013’ Stonewall