BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It’s in the interests of co-workers

It’s in the interests of other workers. The possibility of transmission, while very unlikely, is real and one they have a right to know about so as to be able to guard against it. While most of the time it will not be problem as transmission requires a transfer of bodily fluids this may occasionally happen in a workplace.[1] This is particularly true of healthworkers (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives, paramedics, etc) who should have both a moral and a legal obligation to disclose if they are HIV-positive. Even outside the medical field industrial accidents may expose employees to risk. Employers have a duty to protect their workforce.   [1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘HIV Transmission’, Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm
Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone

Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.
Employers have no right to private medical information

Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them. If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005[1]). Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy.   [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010, http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/2010/01010/Life_Expectancy_After_...
The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high

This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination.[1]  The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission.    In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely.   [1] Pebody, 2009
It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place

The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.
It’s in the interests of employers

It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees.  It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time.  It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with.    It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life.[1]   [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009, http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-health-problems-cause-few-problems-in-employm...
Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour

Needle exchanges do not condone drug use and in fact they actively discourage it. However, it is important to note that drug addicts are not rational actors and given that they are already taking drugs in a very hostile legal environment, it seems that taking a hard line to them is unlikely to have any real affect. What is more likely to work is winning the trust of the addict and then offering them help as and when they need it. Further, the law exists to help those who commit crimes and incarceration exists principally to allow for the rehabilitation of criminals so they may be re-released into society. As such the principal behind the law and punishment is harm reduction and needle exchanges simply exist as an extension of this principle.1   1.       Franciscus, Alan. “Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?” Hepatitis Mag, April 2003. http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hepatitis/hepC/needle_exchange.html
Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use

Most studies indicate that needle exchanges do not increase drug use. This is corroborated by studies in Amsterdam and New Haven, Connecticut. In fact, one programme in San Francisco resulted in decreased drug use in the community owing to the links that were tied with the drug using community. Further reasons for this are also outlined within the third argument on proposition.1 1. "Interventions To Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors". National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference Statement". February 11-13, 1997. http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997PreventHIVRisk104html.htm
Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease

A needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles. Further, the liberalising effect that needle exchanges have on public opinion can often cause societal change that allows needles to be bought over the counter. This is especially good in targeting drug users who do not wish to reveal that they have an addiction and allows them use of clean needles. To back this up it has been found by some researchers that, there has been a one-third reduction in HIV prevalence in New Haven, Connecticut, after its NEP had been in operation for only 4 months. Researchers found an 18.6% average annual decrease in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had introduced an NEP, compared to an 8.1% annual increase in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had never introduced NEPs. HIV prevalence among NEP attenders in a Canadian city was low, even though high-risk behaviors were common. Injecting drug users in Seattle who had formerly attended an NEP were found to be more likely than non-exchangers to reduce the frequency of injection, to stop injecting altogether, and to remain in drug treatment, while new users of the NEP were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than never-exchangers."1   1.       Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf
Needle exchanges protect the public

Needle exchanges allow drug addicts a convenient and safe place to throw away used needles. This directly protects the public from stray needles that are sometimes put in rubbish bins or left lying around. Specifically this protects children who often don’t know to avoid needles but it also protects sanitation workers and other staff from being accidentally struck by a needle. Further, the families of those who are drug addicts can also be helped. Partners and loved ones are much more likely to come into contact with the drug addict and fluid exchange is possible. Given that this is the case, the benefits of needle exchanges also extend to these people.1   1.       Franciscus, Alan. “Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?” Hepatitis Mag, April 2003. http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hepatitis/hepC/needle_exchange.html
Needle exchanges can help social services to locate addicts who are in need of treatment

Needle exchanges allow drug addicts to see formal parts of the state that they often associate with negatively as institutions that can help them. This allows them to more positively associate with other state mechanisms such as rehabilitation clinics in the future. This is further helped by clinic staff being able to recommend drug addicts to rehabilitation centres should they  be looking for help and due to the more anonymous nature of clinic staff, drug addicts might ask for help from them as opposed to a closer person who they fear might judge them. In addition, social services for addicts can be centred on needle exchanges. Rehabilitation clinics as well as simpler facilities such as washrooms can be centred there as well as clinics for disease diagnosis. Further, in the clinics themselves, posters and information pertaining to drug awareness can be circulated in order to help addicts.1, 2   1.       Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf 2.       Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be publicly Funded?”  Close to Home Online,  http://www.thirteen.org/closetohome/viewpoints/html/needle.html
Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour

Needle exchanges increase drug use. The state implicitly accepts that drug use is an acceptable practice when it aids drug users in practicing their habit. As such drug users feel less afraid of taking drugs. This can extend to first time users who might be encouraged by friends to take drugs using the morally grey area created by needle exchanges as an argument. Further, it is principally wrong that the state should help those who choose to take drugs to begin with. In doing so these people are choosing to firstly harm themselves and secondly cause harm to society as well as contravene the law. The state should exist in such a way that should someone contravene the law they be punished, not rewarded with extra supplies from the taxpayer with no further strings.1 1.       Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needlehttp://njfpc.org/making-the-case-for-opposing-needle-exchange exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.
Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use

Beyond increasing drug use through condoning the practice, needle exchanges also facilitate drug use by gathering all the drug addicts in a single area. This allows drug dealers to operate more efficiently and as such gives them more time to explore new markets for their drugs. As well as this, people are encouraged to keep on taking drugs as they feel the risk to them from doing so has been significantly decreased by the exchange. Given the lower risk, those drug users that are still somewhat rational actors will be more likely to take drugs because of the lower potential harm. Further, in the long run, needle exchanges through these mechanisms make it harder to eradicate drug use entirely in the future. By causing addicts and the public to accept drugs needle exchanges ingrain drugs in society as any removal of the facility in the future will be seen as the state coming down too harshly on drug addicts and can be opposed much more easily.1   1.       Lawrence Aaron, “Why a Needle Exchange Programme is a Bad Idea.” RedOrbit. August 26, 2005. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/221310/why_a_needleexchange_program_is_a_bad_idea
Needle exchanges cause crime

Needle exchanges gather a large number of drug addicts into a single area. Many drug addicts are forced into criminality because of their addiction. Given that this is true, the needle exchanges serve to concentrate a large number of potential criminals in a small area. Not only does this increase crime in the area itself significantly, what is also manages to do is cause criminals to meet other criminals who they may not have interacted with before. This can either lead to the aforementioned criminals working together and causing more problems, or it can lead to violence between rival criminals and their gangs. Further, the simple gathering of criminals in a single area can also serve to attract other criminals to the same area to possibly reap benefits. This often comes in the form of prostitution, which thrives in areas of high crime and weaker police presence.1   1.       Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007. http://njfpc.org/making-the-case-for-opposing-needle-exchange
Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease

Some studies have found that needle exchanges are not related to decreases in HIV transmission. It is theorised that the overall increase in drug use that needle exchanges cause, which is described in the first point of the opposition case, offsets the benefits the exchanges provide in terms of disease prevention. Further, in providing needle exchanges to prevent disease, it is possible that states and people think the problems of drug use are solved and fail to do any more to prevent the problem, which explains the continued deaths of drug addicts due to causes other than infection due to dirty needles.1   1.       Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?”  Close to Home Online,  http://www.thirteen.org/closetohome/viewpoints/html/needle.html
Needle exchanges protect the public

Needle exchanges can result in areas of open drug use around the needle exchange. Given the level of criminality of drug users it often causes these areas to degenerate into dangerous places which the public cannot go to. This is effect causes harm to local business, not only because of the actual potential for harm, but also because people inherently fear drug dealers and addicts. As well as this, the area around the needle exchange will have large numbers of stray needles, often causing as much damage as they prevent in other areas.4 1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007. http://njfpc.org/making-the-case-for-opposing-needle-exchange
Needle exchanges can help social services to locate addicts who are in need of treatment

Some studies have shown that there are relatively few referrals to drug treatment clinics from needle exchanges. This might be due to the fact that drug addicts who attain clean needles assume that they are now ‘safe’ taking drugs and as such see no need to get into rehab for their addiction. Further, many needle exchanges are often unenthusiastic and ineffective at changing the behaviour of drug addicts. With the number of people who relapse despite the best care it can often be demoralising for staff and as such lead to lacklustre service that does not result in drug addicts getting clean. Ultimately it can also be argued that more funding should simply be focused upon treatment if the rehabilitation of drug addicts is such an important part of this scheme.1, 2   1.       Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?”  Close to Home Online,  http://www.thirteen.org/closetohome/viewpoints/html/needle.html 2.       “Report: Needle Exchange Program Finds Mixed Success in Atlantic City.” Drugfree.org January 22, 2009. http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prevention/report-needle-exchange
Clandestine aid to dissidents will serve to alienate and close off discourse on policy

It is often not enough simply to encourage gradual change, many states when given such encouragement simply take what the west offers and ignores what the west asks. This indeed was the case with Mubarak's Egypt for three decades, it took billions in aid from the United States yet did not reform, the U.S. even strengthened the regime by respecting restrictions on which NGOs could get funding.1 If people are able to act and organize with more limited government reprisal, their chance of success is significantly increased. The incentive of the West should be to bet on the dissidents when they rise up and to take the gamble so that they can welcome a new, freer regime into the congress of nations. 1Bery, S., “Roots of Discontent: Egypt's Call for Freedom”, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011. http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k74756&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup124714
Aiding of the agents of chaos will allow the government to discredit the uprisings as being instigated and abetted by the West

In an uprising the government is going to try to level lots of accusations. Some will stick, some will not. In this case the government has a touch more ammunition on the anti-Western front, but this is entirely overwhelmed by the boon of protecting the leaders and organizers, who are at greatest risk using the social media needed to coordinate the uprising, and are the most essential to a successful outcome. The benefits of providing anonymity clearly outweigh the tangential costs of giving a bit more mud to the government to sling.
Western businesses will be forced out of lucrative markets

Engagement will still occur. The software exists to aid in uprisings, which is the endpoint of the regime, or at least a signal of its imminent change. It is a play that Western governments should back on a human as well as political level. The subsidies and incentives, furthermore, can be sufficient to compensate companies if things do indeed go sour. This would be expected, in fact, since the companies, acting rationally will have to be coaxed into producing and supplying this technology.
Anonymity software helps to guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings

The past few years have been marked by an explosion of uprisings around the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Arab world generally. These uprisings have all been marked by the extensive and pervasive use of social media and social networking tools, like Twitter, BlackBerry Mobile, and other platforms. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been called the Twitter Revolution after the huge number of people using that platform to lead and chronicle the successful uprising.1 It was the sophistication of physical surveillance technology and the resourcefulness of the security forces that forced dissenters onto the internet, which quickly became, prior to the start of large scale demonstrations, the primary mode of expressing discontent with governments. But the internet is no safe haven, and technology has caught up, allowing governments to crack down on individuals who engage in dissent online. Anyone using the internet to coordinate demonstrations therefore faces the threat of being tracked and arrested as a result. This was the case in Iran after the failed Green Revolution, dissenters were rounded up and punished for challenging the government.2 Without anonymity, participants in uprisings are liable to face reprisals. Only external help from the technologically advanced West can these freedom fighters maintain their safety and still be able to fight for what they believe in. 1 Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/14/the_first_twitter_revolution 2Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/iran-gets-back-e-mail-access-but-other-sites-remain-blacked-out-ahead-of-protest/2012/02/13/gIQAgxz5AR_blog.html
Western states have a duty to aid those striving for the ideals they cherish

The West stands as the symbol of liberal democracy to which many political dissidents aspire in emulation. It is also, as a broad group, the primary expounder, propagator, and establisher of concepts and practices pertaining to human rights, both within and without their borders. The generation and dissemination of anonymity software into countries that are in the midst of, or are moving toward, uprising and revolution is critical to allowing those endeavours to succeed. This obligation still attains even when the technology does not yet exist, in the same way that the West often feels obligated to fund research into developing vaccines and other treatments for specifically external use, thus in 2001 the United States spent $133million on AIDS research through the National institutes of Health.1 The West thus has a clear duty to make some provision for getting that software to the people that need it, because it can secure the primary platform needed to build the groundswell to fight for their basic rights by ensuring its security and reliability.2 To not act in this way serves as a tacit condolence of the status quo of misery and brutality that sparks grassroots uprisings. If the West cares about civil liberties and human rights as true values that should be spread worldwide and not just political talking points, then it must adopt this policy. 1Alagiri, P. Et al., “Global Spending on HIV/AIDS Tackling Public and Private Investments in AIDS Prevention, Care, and Research”, July 2001. http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/global_spending.pdf p.5 2Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012. http://abolitionistpaper.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/networking-rebellion-digital-policing-and-revolt-in-the-arab-uprisings/