BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Context

On the motion THW ban strikes for transport workers, we choose to set the debate in Greece. Workers strikes are usually organized by the labour unions that represent the workers, they are a tool used by the unions in order to bargain for the workers rights. We are against strikes regardless of what industry they are in, but for the purposes of this debate, we shall be focusing on the harms of strikes within the transport industry. The Greek Economy has been severely damaged by the financial crisis, and the transport industry has been no exception. In July 2010, the OSE the Greek railway organisation been trying to raise €400m ($488m, £330m) of loans through the public debt management agency to finance day-to-day operations.In the same month, bus services in Athens shut down after employees of the OASA, the Greek state-controlled transport organisation, walked off the job, impairing the city’s transport system. These two incidents highlighted a major problem, and this is how side proposition will deal with it.
The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not nee...

The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. Effectively, such a definition says that the armies of sovereign states should have a monopoly on violence, and that they can only act in certain ways. Some exceptions to this are surely easy to justify - e.g. the actions of the French resistance to German occupation in World War II, or of American patriots against the British in the 1770s. A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?
In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and...

Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering.
Terrorism works. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate wi...

Terrorism does not work. It antagonises and angers the community that it targets. It polarises opinion and makes it more difficult for moderates on both sides to prevail and compromise. A lasting and peaceful settlement can only be won with the freely given consent of both parties to a conflict or disagreement. The bad-feeling caused by the slaughter of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people by terrorists makes such consent desperately difficult to give. Furthermore, states or institutions created in concession to terror are often corrupt, dominated by men of violence with links to organised crime. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used.
Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brough...

All publicity is definitely not good publicity. Powerful images of suffering and death will permanently mark the terrorists’ cause, losing the battle for public opinion around the world. Furthermore, groups that resort to terrorism play into the hands of their opponents; states suffering from terrorism can win powerful support from similarly affected nations, such as the USA, in combating this threat.
Ideals like “freedom” and “liberty” are more important than a single human life; they are what gives...

Abstract ideals are insignificant when compared to the value of even a single life. Life is sacred, and to murder anyone in pursuit of an idea – or even the improvement of other people’s lives – is shocking, abhorrent and wrong. No one has the right to say another person’s life is worthless, or worth less than the cause which is pursued through terrorism.
Actions should be judged by their consequences. In bringing hope, popular recognition, and ultimatel...

The end does not justify the means. The consequences of any action are by no means clear. The success of terrorism is not guaranteed; it is an immoral gamble to kill people in the hope of achieving something else. And even if the goal was realised, the price paid is literally incalculable. Those who use violence in the pursuit of “higher” aims presume to be able to calculate suffering. But the fear, suffering and death caused by terrorism damage millions of people. Not just the victims are affected, with their families and fellow citizens, but also people in many different countries who are put at risk because terrorists from other countries are inspired by these atrocious acts.
The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not nee...

States who ignore the Geneva Conventions, for example by mistreating prisoners or deliberately attacking civilian targets, are guilty of terrorism and this cannot be justified. Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism. Nor is it reasonable to argue that there are grey areas, and that civilians are sometimes legitimate targets - once such a claim has been made anything can eventually be 'justified' in the name of some cause. All too often the political leaderships of protest movements have decided that limited 'physical force' is necessary to advance their cause, only to find the violence spiralling out of control. The 'hard men' who are prepared to use force end up in control of the movement, which increasingly attracts criminals and others who love violence for its own sake. The original base of support for the movement in the wider population and internationally is alienated. The authorities against whom the movement is struggling also respond by using increasingly repressive measures of their own, generating a spiral of violence and cruelty.
Terrorism works. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate wi...

Terrorism works. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, recently in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, terrorism is justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed.
Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brough...

Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world. States can use their wealth and media to put across their side of the story; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need to resort to terrorism to publicise their cause. In this way, limited and focused use of violence can have a dramatic international impact.
NASA is not only ineffective in advancing space exploration; it actually prevents progress by others...

NASA is not only ineffective in advancing space exploration; it actually prevents progress by others. In recent years private businesses have become interested in space exploration, finding innovative and cost-effective ways to solve technological challenges. Yet NASA obstructs the development of cheaper private sector alternatives to its own efforts, just as any big centrally-planned socialist monopoly distorts the economy. NASA has prevented other branches of government from placing space-related work (e.g. satellite launches) with private companies. The agency also ties up vast numbers of talented engineers and scientists in both its own ranks and in university departments that receive NASA funding. Freeing these minds from the numbing hand of government would unleash innovation and enterpreneurial energies that would surely drive progress rapidly forward and quickly bring down the costs of space flight.
If the government wishes to put public money into space research and exploration, then it should do ...

If the government wishes to put public money into space research and exploration, then it should do so as a customer. In other areas of public life government increasingly commissions services from specialist private companies (e.g. welfare or military supply), which bid in open competition for the work and accept some of the risks. This drives down costs, promotes innovation and efficiency, and ensures that the government’s financial commitment is capped. Following the same model, if the state wishes to buy satellite data, transport a load to the International Space Station, or send a mission to Pluto, it should put the job out to tender from the private sector rather than building its own wasteful and enormously expensive infrastructure.
The government should stop funding NASA because it is not worth the $17 billion of taxpayers’ money ...

The government does not put a high enough priorty on space exploration and NASA should receive much more government funding in order to expand its crucial mission. Far from being pointless, NASA’s recent work has allowed mankind to explore the origins of the universe and our own planet’s formation. It has led the search for worlds around distant stars, where life might one day be found. And it continues to embrace the challenge of human spaceflight; manned missions have a flexibility and scope that robot probes will never deliver, and they can inspire and unite humanity in pursuit of a noble common cause.
NASA is such an expensive part of the government budget that it would be better to redirect the mone...

Cutting NASA out of the federal budget, would only cut less than one percent of the total. Compare this to the 5% of the federal budget spent on NASA at the height of the Apollo missions to the moon and it is clear that its current programmes are affordable. Nor would scrapping NASA and spending its budget on social programmes make any great difference – the federal government alone spends nearly a hundred times more on social programmes than it does on NASA (and state and local governments spend tens of billions more tax dollars on similar programmes). So the impact on the poor from redirecting our space exploration budget would be less significant than a rounding error in federal accounting. By comparison, defence and homeland security spending is more than forty times NASA’s budget each year, so if the nation is to change its priorities that is clearly a better place to start.
We should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space. The environmental damage that m...

Even if earth’s huge social and environmental problems could be solved simply by throwing more money at them, redirecting NASA’s small budget will make no real difference. In fact NASA makes a real contribution to solving the world’s problems by helping to expose and investigate the issues facing us. For example, NASA satellites provide critical data on problems such as the ozone layer or global warming, and they can expose illegal deforestation or track the progress of dangerous weather events such as hurricanes. More profoundly, NASA’s pictures from space of our beautiful Earth have changed human consciousness, bringing home to us our common destiny as shared inhabitants of a fragile planet. Nothing has done more to stimulate the growth of internationalism and environmental awareness.
NASA is hugely bureaucratic and wasteful, tying up thousands of our nation’s best minds in a complex...

NASA’s funding and management are not perfect, but that is a reason to reform them, not to abolish the agency altogether. Part of the reason the agency’s work is expensive is that it is both cutting-edge and concerned to minimise risk. Other countries’ space agencies and private companies may look more cost-effective, but that is because they are less ambitious, being largely content to replicate what NASA already achieved decades ago. They may also be prepared to tolerate more risk to their manned missions than NASA would. But with NASA’s commitment to the most challenging and innovative scientific missions comes economic benefits, as technological breakthroughs in materials, communications, imaging, and propulsion find new applications in civilian industries here in the USA.
Many who are serious about space research are very critical of NASA’s emphasis on manned space explo...

NASA has always been committed to manned flight, so President Bush’s New Vision for Space Exploration was hardly imposed on the agency. Robot missions are fine for one-off, defined tasks, but they are not able to respond intelligently and flexibly to new situations in the way astronauts can. Manned missions can take on many more challenges (e.g. repairing and reconditinaing the Hubble space telescope); they also have huge importance in focusing the attention of mankind upon the mysteries of the universe and in inspiring millions of young people to become engineers and scientists. It is true there is a legitimate debate within the space community about manned vs unmanned missions, but few who wish to focus on unmanned spaceflight would want to shut NASA down. Instead they would like it to shift its priorities, generally into areas private space businesses are unlikely to venture.
NASA is not only ineffective in advancing space exploration; it actually prevents progress by others...

In recent years many private sectors space companies have started up, which suggests that NASA is not preventing their growth. On the contrary, NASA’s investment in research and technology has stimulated an eco-system of space industries that continue to depend on it for trained personnel and scientific innovation. But these private efforts will never replace NASA’s role – they are only interested in the commercial opportunities of near-space, such as tourism or satellite launches. Private money will never wish to explore the solar system and answer the fundamental questions about the origins of the universe. For these, we have NASA.
If the government wishes to put public money into space research and exploration, then it should do ...

The government should not be reliant on the private sector for its access to space. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, having a dedicated space agency continually expands the realm of the possible, allowing it to offer new data and propose new missions to government. Without NASA’s expertise, the government would not know how to approach space exploration, so private companies would not be offered any business anyway. Secondly and more importantly, control of space is now critical to our defence, with intelligence-gathering, communications and early warning satellites vital to the protection of American interests and the projection of its power. Not only should control of this part of our national security not be entrusted to private business, but defence considerations mean that NASA should continue to be well funded in order to ensure the USA continues to be the global leader in all space technology.
The government should stop funding NASA because it is not worth the $17 billion of taxpayers’ money ...

The government should stop funding NASA because it is not worth the $17 billion of taxpayers’ money that is spent on it every year. We can take pride in NASA’s past achievements of putting men on the moon, and enjoy the benefits of satellite communications which resulted from its work in the 1960s and 1970s. However, NASA’s recent record is very poor. Its scientific discoveries are of no practical use to mankind. Its tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia is part of a pattern of failures that expose the agency as dangerously incompetent and wasteful. And its obsession with manned spaceflight and the International Space Station combines maximum expense with minimum scientific justification.
NASA is such an expensive part of the government budget that it would be better to redirect the mone...

NASA is such an expensive part of the government budget that it would be better to redirect the money to more urgent causes here on earth. Barack Obama, for example, has suggested cutting the agency’s budget in order to fund early years education and more investment in the teaching of Maths and Science. Others see the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance and wonder whether a country which pours billions into space exploration has its priorities straight. The facts that America is entering an economic downturn and that the federal budget deficit is huge suggest that NASA is a luxury we should no longer afford.
We should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space. The environmental damage that m...

We should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space. The environmental damage that mankind has inflicted on our planet is so great that life on earth is in great danger. At the same time millions of children go to bed hungry and die of preventable diseases. Tackling these issues is such a global priority that all our resources need to be directed to saving the planet and its, rather than frittered away into space. If our nation’s technological might and the efforts of its best scientific minds were directed to these causes instead of cosmic ones, we have a chance to reverse our suicidal course.
NASA is hugely bureaucratic and wasteful, tying up thousands of our nation’s best minds in a complex...

NASA is hugely bureaucratic and wasteful, tying up thousands of our nation’s best minds in a complex system of red tape and vested interests. Other countries and private companies both produce much cheaper, more cost-effective space missions. NASA also suffers from political interference, with the President and Congress both trying to micro-manage the agency. This forces it to focus on prestige projects, such as the International Space Station or President Bush’s New Vision for Space Exploration with its emphasis on manned flights to the moon and Mars. At other times it has proposed politically-correct missions “to planet earth” to please environmentalist legislators. And each year NASA’s funding round in Congress becomes highly politicised as legislators seek to ensure that part of its budget is spent in particular states, or devoted to their pet projects.
Many who are serious about space research are very critical of NASA’s emphasis on manned space explo...

Many who are serious about space research are very critical of NASA’s emphasis on manned space exploration. They see it a classic example of political interference, as NASA seeks to respond to President Bush’s New Vision for Space Exploration. This may be more sensational, making it easier for NASA to attract funding from the Administration and Congress, but it makes the agency look like it exists simply for its own sake. The New Vision will actually result in less serious science being done as money is shifted away from more cost-effective and important robotic missions. Manned space flights are hugely more expensive than unmanned missions, largely because the rockets and craft needed to send people into orbit are much larger than those needed for robotic exploration, but also because so much has to be done to minimise risk. Yet that risk cannot be completely removed, as NASA’s past tragedies show, and further loss of lives may well discredit the whole idea of space exploration of any kind.
Celebrities and drugs

There are two questions here. Firstly, what is a role model? Secondly, are young people as influenced by celebrities as the proposition makes it out to be? The definition of a role model isn’t someone that a young person copies the behaviour of mindlessly. A definition of "role model" is someone worthy of imitation, implying that people wish to emulate the good aspects of a person’s character, such as their ability to sing or to play football, and not the aspects that are socially unacceptable, such as drug-taking. Remember, drug education in schools and colleges is larger and more in-detail than it ever was. In addition, young people are not solely influenced by celebrities. They do not look up to one person alone, but a whole range of people, including parents, friends, teachers, members of the community. It is arguable whether celebrities or other people are of main importance to children; however, who is responsible for giving the young people drugs? Do celebrities hand out drugs? No. It is often friends or people known to the young person who push drugs on. Peer pressure is more of an influence on young people than the example of Pete Doherty, and it is not celebrities who are most to blame for young people getting into drugs, therefore sentencing celebrities more harshly would have little, if any, effect. We are all human, whatever happens to one person with drugs should be the same with others. that would be not treating one person equally to another...bias
Our treatment of celebrities reflects our national stance on drugs

By punishing celebrities more harshly than the regular public, we would not be reflecting our national stance on these offences to the world. Rather, we would be seen to be treating drug-abusers on the streets less harshly than they deserve. The offenders on the streets commit more of the drug related offences, including those that celebrities do not commit, such as petty theft to fund drug habits. If we want a fair system for all, we must make all drug-related sentencing harsher. After all, who is likely to take drugs in a country where the punishments include very lengthy jail sentences or even the death penalty? In addition, very few celebrities have a truly global presence, and of those only a select few commit offences. Most of the celebrities who break the laws have fame restricted to that country, such as the contestants on Big Brother. How can we say that making celebrity sentences harsher will make other countries think again if those we're punishing harsher have never been heard of in other countries?