BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are better, more sustainable options available.

The Prop’s case is faulted & is based on a basic understanding of the effect that such a blanket tax on all mining and extraction companies would have. We believe that there are multiple alternatives to a blanket high tax on all mining & extraction companies. Rather than jumping straight for what seems to be the ‘easiest’ option, governments need to focus on investing in long term solutions which are sustainable in terms of resource regeneration and conservation as well as being sustainable in terms of maintaining a stable and steady national economy. Two such alternatives include implementing a sliding tax system which is relative to the profit made from the mining/extraction resources. This would allow big transnational companies to be taxed more money based on their multi-billion dollar GDPs. Alternatively, domestic producers would be able to sustain their standing within the country’s economy as they will be paying a similar relative tax that is based on their much lower GDPs, resulting in a much more sustainable situation for domestic producers to return profits to their own country. The other option is the concept that governments who rely on taxing their producers and investors discourage those companies from investing in their country’s resources, as seen in the current situations in Chad, Australia & Venezuela. This downturn in the industry ultimately leads to a flow through effect in nearly every other sector, including manufacturing, employment & infrastructure. A much more successful way to encourage investors to maintain and expand their investment in the mining and extraction industry is to offer tax incentives to encourage companies to invest in research and development of their own environmentally sustainable practices. Additionally, we propose that governments, should pass legislation pressuring companies to act in a much more environmentally and economically responsible manner, and force them to take responsibility for their own clean u
Sustained Overexploitation Leads to Depletion

Due to mineral extraction, resource rich countries are left with damages such as waste heaps, arid land, and pollution. Though the over-exploitation in resource-rich nations is affecting the environment negatively, companies are increasing their demand for minerals every year. The World Bank states that the demand for minerals such as copper could rise by 60% or more within the next 15 years; thus requiring the discovery of new reserves to replace the depleting mines; just for one type of mineral. Realizing the consequences the humanity will be facing in the long term, we would like to solve this issue through imposing high taxes on mining and extraction. High taxation would benefit the gov. of the resource-rich nations. With the money from the tax, the govs. will be able to clea up the damages from mining. Also, since the resources would become incredibly expensive due to the high taxation, the companies will buy less in order to stay within their budget. To clarify, passing the motion will reduce the amount of resources the companies are capable of buying while providing a chance for the resource-rich nations to improve their economy, infrastructures, social service programs, preservation of environment, etc. However, by negating, the resource-rich nations will be incapable of clearing up the messes from the mining and extraction. In the short run, more land will be used as a mining/extraction area; leaving less and less area for the citizens to live. Habitats of certain animal species will be destroyed and there will be a disturbance in the food chain. Food chain disturbance is harmful because one, these animal species may attack in order to survive and two, a keystone specie could be endangered or extinct, resulting in an unbalanced food chain. The long term impact is that the humans will no longer be capable of drinking clean water, and growing crop, and have world much more polluted than what we have today.
We need to focus not only on the environment, but also the real life implications on citizens.

The Prop has failed to realise that the welfare of citizens is just as important as the environment. They have said “if governments... are not interested in the welfare of their people, this is a problem beyond the scope of our motion.” Clearly they have completely forgotten that most of the resource rich nations have such governments [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex/]] & it is because such gov’ts do not have an interest in the welfare of their people, high taxes are not viable. Their argument has failed to consider this point. Governments of resource rich nations shouldn’t impose high taxes on mining & extraction as doing so would only grant a gov’t more money to abuse. For example, Africa has a large percentage of the world’s minerals & resources however, the “windfall gains reduce a state’s incentive to impose a free and just taxation system and encourages corruption and acquisition of weaponry and thus develops conflicts” [[http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/63/1/Rich-countries-and-their-leverage-on-Africa/Page1.html]]. While countries in Africa are among the poorest in the world, the gov’ts of these nations receive sizable funds which are not passed down to citizens. An example of the inequalities that high taxes create can be seen in the Republic of Congo, where most citizens are mired in poverty. However, members of government & their families live in luxury. In 2007 Global Witness revealed how Denis CS Nguesso, son of the President, was spending Congonese oil revenues on personal luxury shopping [[http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/corruption/oil-gas-and-mining/republic-of-congo]]. The Prop suggests a high tax would be beneficial in saving the environment without considering the welfare of citizens. However, we as the opposition consider both sides & suggest that it would be much more suitable for governments to encourage and enforce the transparency of mining companies & influence them to invest in sustainable deve
High taxes protect domestic resources.

We see the danger in the continuation of over-exploitation in resource-rich nations, which is why we believe imposing high taxes on mining and extraction is necessary. Our opponents believe this will decrease the ability of companies to operate. If this were true, it would only preserve the countries’ resources for a later day, at which time they are likely to be worth even more. Minerals and hydrocarbons can be found in a limited number of places, and the amounts in which they exist are also limited. If time is factored out of the equation, demand for them, on the other hand, is virtually unlimited. It is hard to imagine a world in which minerals and hydrocarbons are not needed, and in quantities that exceed the supply. The opposition predicted the downfall of resource-rich nations if our plan is implemented. However, this doesn’t fit the reality. In their second argument, they mentioned the example of Australia where high tax was introduced and actually resulted in the decrease of resource exploitation. Their contradictory evidence strongly serves our argument that as a result of imposing high tax, over-exploitation of resources will be prevented. Also, resource-rich nations are in possession of poor contracts, meaning that the resources these countries sell to the companies are not very expensive. This is an issue because, while business concerns itself with short term benefits resource-rich nations are basically being taken advantage of as precious natural capital is treated like any renewable commodity and sold out from under them. As we have pointed out, natural resources should not be merely individual property. They belong, on some level, to the entire nation, and the nation should be compensated for their loss. There are few ways to compensate an entire nation without involving its government, which is why we suggest that taxes are a reasonable means of giving back to the people.
Sustainability of such taxes and their effect on sustainability within a country.

We would like to clarify that what the proposition proposes will help gov better protect natural resources. We do realize that someday the resources will dissipate, however, the opposition is making an unreasonable assumption that gov will increase taxes on citizens or domestic manufacturers to account for the disparity between old and new tax levels. As we’ve already previously stated, a social contract exists between a gov and its citizens. The gov has a responsibility to provide better life and opportunities only to serve the will of the people. Clearly, gov wouldn’t risk harming their own citizens, or bringing harm to their country. The opposition has taken our point to the extreme. What we meant about high taxes preparing the country for the long term to promote sustainable growth, is that since the resources are highly taxed, it means companies will stay within their budget. These companies are going to use any means to survive and bring the greatest benefit to their income status when taxes are imposed. According to The Economist, “Mining companies themselves, they have little choice about where to operate but they will inevitably reorganize their financial structures to be tax-efficient.”Because of this, many companies will invest in researching alternatives and renewable energy sources. In this way, they would not only continue to make profit for both themselves and their investors, but would also be more environmental-friendly. Therefore, what the proposition is advocating for is bringing benefits to the gov and citizens of the resource-rich nations and putting a limit on the usage of the resources so that we use them appropriately in terms of quantity. Also, because the resources are limited, by imposing taxes, companies would have an incentive to use resources that are used on mining and extraction for further developing energy and technology for sustainable growth &preserve the environment—which is the main point of this debate.
High taxes on mining and extraction would cause many adverse affects on the country and its citizens.

First of all, the “Resource Curse” is not only an African/South American problem. There are a number of factors that contribute,including the tendency to depend on a single economic sector and a rise in the value of the nation’s currency during boom periods, which makes other exports too expensive for foreign buyers. Taxes can offset these problems if they are used to boost the competitiveness of other sectors, such as manufacturing or agriculture. We are not sure who the Opp thinks should be in charge of assisting nations in distributing their current tax income effectively. We did point out already that any taxes are only beneficial to people when they are used in the people’s interest. That is no surprise. But taxes are necessary both to finance desired public spending in a noninflationary way and also to ensure that the burden of paying for such spending is fairly distributed. While necessary, taxes impose real costs on society. Good tax policy seeks to minimize those costs.Sometimes people don’t follow the rules, either, but overall, we still think that rules are useful to have. What we propose is simply this: that high taxes are desirable and necessary not only where minerals and fuels are delivered to the consumer, but where they are extracted. If the governments in question are not interested in the welfare of their people, this is a problem beyond the scope of our motion, and we concede that taxation is not likely to solve it. It's unreasonable to oppose this motion, or any motion that involves imposing taxes just because corrupt governments in countries like Libya don't use money to benefit their people. Thus, our opposition is missing the major point of this debate, which is the responsibility for each country to protect world’s environment. Before the duty to protect mining no longer becomes responsibility of the government, but of each individuals who are contributing to the damage, it is govt's job to implement preventative actions.
High Mining Taxes would Balance the Economy

The opposition’s argument is flawed as they have not considered all of the stakeholders nor have they looked far enough into the future & what the detriments will be when resources run out. Creating a high tax on companies will lead to an over-reliance on the capital provided by these taxes & therefore create an over-reliance on an income that will eventually dry up. What will governments do then? They will suddenly have to find another way to create that same amount of tax from elsewhere. This will result in increased taxes on the citizens of their country &/or other domestic manufacturers & sales companies. The government will run a deficit & fall into a recession. Also, if transnational companies are taxed at the same or similar rate to that of domestic producers then the gap the Prop describe will only be further apart; the more the ‘high tax’ is taken from their GDP. Domestic producers will simply not survive this kind of irrational taxing system. Profits from the country’s resources will be taken overseas & the country will only be left with the money from the high tax they are taking off transnational and domestic companies. This cannot possibly be seen as sustainable for anyone other than the transnational companies. This solution does not promote long-term growth within the resource rich countries. The reduction in the country’s GDP will effect the human capital in the short, mid & long term when all the profits end up going overseas, while our companies are shutting down, reducing our GDP and forcing people out of jobs. People will be pushed out of jobs not only in mining & extraction but also in manufacturing, sales, housing, ITC & infrastructure. Domestic producers will not be able to sustain themselves against the transnational companies The loss of these domestic producers as well as the down turn in several sectors will negatively effect all stakeholders in a resource rich nation.
Domestic and Global impact of such a tax will be too great.

We would like to first of all point out that all of Opp's negative impacts only come in a nation with a government which will not directly provide the received tax money for the people, but rather for itself. However, we have made it clear since our introduction that the nations in which this motion will be implemented will be ones that will have the means to provide the tax money directly for the good of the people. The fact that Opp accuses the Prop case for trusting governments, especially ones who have economic institutions and the means to use the tax money for the welfare of the citizens, to help the people is quite unreasonable. We would like to second of all make evident that it is not in the Prop's burden to prove how exactly the received tax money will directly go to the people, but to prove that mining taxes should be increased, basing our case on the premise that nations will in fact, use the money for the citizens. This premise goes unattacked by the Opp, and seeing this, we see no problems as to why the citizens will suffer through the motion. We quote the Opp on this fifth contention, "we cannot give such a huge responsibility to societies where corruption occurs every day, rather we need to place pressure on companies to act responsibly." Firstly, we have stated that we will only be giving this responsibility to societies that will not misuse it. And secondly, they have not given an alternative actor that will put pressure on companies to act responsibly. Having said this, we would like to state that the government itself, which is responsible of its citizens who are hurt the most by mining and extraction, is the best actor to do so.
Government's Obligation to Benefit Citizens

The proposition may not realise that the example showing the percentage of revenue gov.s could spend on other areas does not actually prove any benefits - any sum of money can be divided amongst different sectors. In truth any revenue from increased taxes will not significantly balance the deficit caused to the economy by the loss to the resource sector. The point of exploitation for poorer countries is not really relevant as a tax hike will not actually solve the issue, but just try to cover it up. Only by allowing the resource industry to develop naturally in these often younger countries will the problem be solved as business strategies improve over time. Realistically a raise in tax will only lead to further exploitation as companies desperately try to regain lost profits. They will try various and often questionable methods to regain these profits, resulting in less profit trickling down to citizens. Governments cannot ethically try to improve the situation of the majority of the population if that results in harming the livelihood of a minority. Considering the large number of jobs and careers available in the mining industry, a tax hike which forces thousands into unemployment is not ethically sound. This is true even if jobs are created in other areas. However, this is unlikely as the revenue from a resource tax will not be substantial enough to offset the blow to the economy from a stagnation of development in the resource sector, which naturally occurs when high taxes are imposed [[http://jim.com/econ_growth/index.html]].
We need a solution that benefits the majority.

Throughout this debate we have presented the Prop with several arguments explaining why the governments of resource rich nations should not impose a high mining and extraction tax. While we have considered the social, economic as well as environmental sides of the debate, the Prop have only considered the environmental impacts. They have even said, “[preserving] the environment [which] is the main point of this debate.” While we have continuously urged them to consider the welfare of citizens as well as the economy of a nation they have simply refused to negotiate on the real-life effects that high taxes would have on multiple stakeholders on both a domestic and global scale. The unfortunate truth is that we live in a volatile global reality, where corruption and mismanagement of government budgets are both a reality for over half the world’s nations [[http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results]]. We have provided evidence on the corrupted nature of many resource rich governments and this proves this is a problem that must be considered when looking at the effectiveness of implementing these high taxes. We have also continuously pointed out that one of the main issues associated with implementing a high tax in resource rich nations is the trust that can be held in their governments. We have raised this question a number of times and all we have heard in response is that “if governments... are not interested in the welfare of their people, this is a problem beyond the scope of our motion”. We feel this is in fact a major problem that must be dealt with prior to establishing a new global norm of high taxation on mining and extraction industries as the negative implications and costs to the majority of resource rich countries will be too great. The realistic social and political impacts that the implementation of such tax will have on ALL stakeholders involved has been considered by us but ignored by the prop. The Prop have also graciously agreed that by implementing a high tax “the companies will buy less in order to stay within their budget.” This only proves that the implementation of such high taxes will mean that companies will be forced to reduce spending on current technologies and practices rather than encourage investment in developing new, environmentally and economically sustainable ones. The Prop have made several unsubstantiated assertions throughout their argument and they have ignored the realistic negative effects that we have proven to exist. In particular the rise in the cost of commodities would devastate the people of those nations as well negatively effect both import and export profits. There are better ways to achieve what the Prop has proposed and this must be achieved through incentives and pressure on companies rather than simply increasing tax.
Sterilising Boom Revenues Helps Saving.

Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are not feasible as they are not a suitable solution for the majority of resource rich nations. SWFs are not appropriate as many govt’s cannot be trusted with the responsibilities involved in this scheme because some nations have a weak gov’t structure resulting from corruption. Hence these nations cannot be trusted with a SWF. Abu Dhabi, for instance, has invested it’s SWF monies into the company AMD, who develop Defense Department technologies [[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21840227/ns/business-us_business/t/abu-dhabi-buys-stake-chip-maker-amd/#.Tk71KKhXGwM]]. With no safeguard against the use of funds for political agendas we cannot guarantee that the tax funds are going directly towards the welfare of citizens. Considering that one of the richer, more stable gov’ts like Abu Dhabi is not transparent with its use of funds then what trust can we put in those resource rich nations with corrupted governments and unstable economies? We cannot be sure that they will use the SWF with the country’s best interests in mind. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund#Concerns_about_SWFs]]. EU’s decision not to support the implementation of SWFs adds to this point’s validity. They have excluded them as a viable option for fear it would give rise to a resurgence in international protectionism. This would lead to gov’ts imposing things like tarifs on imports & is likely to block fair competition & cause tension in the global community [[http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-quotnewquot-protectionism/]]. The prop’s proposal of sterilising boom revenues is not only highly optimistic, but unrealistic. It is all fair to say that it is working in a few countries, such as Norway, Azerbaijan and Kuwait; however, this does not mean it will work in other countries. Ultimately, the risk of this high tax is enough of a reason to invest in alternate solutions which guarantee sustainable policies and practices within
Sustainability of such taxes and their effect on sustainability within a country.

The concept of taxing ALL companies for their mining & extraction is not a sustainable practice & will lead to future instability in the country once the resources run out. The reality is that resources will eventually run out & the countries will suddenly have the cash flow from the taxes disappear. This would offset the permanent loss of a nation’s natural capital with preparation for long term, sustainable growth. The proposition have argued that high taxes will prepare the country for long term sustainable growth. However, we would argue that high taxes do the opposite and in fact, having reduced or relative taxes would, in fact,sustain the growth of the country. Firstly, by having high taxes the profits of domestic producers will be disadvantaged & the implications of a reduction in their profits will greatly have a flow over effect into all other sectors of the community, including manufacturing & sales. Prices will inflate & people will spend less because they will have no money to spend. The proposition have not suggested that domestic producers would be taxed at a different rate & this is simply drive those companies into a deficit. Also, in the recent Global Financial Crisis (GFC), countries that were taxing highly on their resources suffered MORE than those that had no tax or a low tax. Countries such as Australia, that did not place high taxes on domestic producers were the only countries to maintain their economic status. [[http://www.chinamining.org/News/2010-08-24/1282633913d38555.htm]] By applying high taxes, governments will become reliant on this revenue, despite the fact that most resources, such as coal & copper, will eventually run out. Companies, especially transnational companies (TNTs), will be less inclined to develop & implement sustainable practices as they will have no incentive for change as the reality is that investors place enormous pressure on companies to maintain the GDP.