bpHigh/BIRCO_ArguAna_Without_Task_Awareness huggingface dataset:
Argument: In the event of an imminent attack it is only reasonable to use force to find information  If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as quickly as possible.  If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives

Counterargument: human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?  If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.
Argument: Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague  Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.

Counterargument: warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war A definition of aggression in traditional warfare is the act that threatens sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state [26] – a definition which is expected to be used with cyber attacks too. It is highly unlikely to see a small scale cyber attack corresponding to this definition. For instance, taking down a media web page (as the Syrian Electronic Army did) does not threaten political independence of another state in a way that taking down all the government websites, and thus rendering the state incapable of functioning, does. Recognising that a cyber attack can be an act of war, does not mean that any cyber attack, will be considered such. In practice this same ambiguity is inherent in war – a country might consider it a casus belli if another’s military chases terrorists onto its territory but this would be similarly ambiguous if there were no casualties and it was not a direct attack.
Argument: People should have a right of access to justice.  Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK [1] , and the Supreme Court in the US [2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects [3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors.  [1]  , accessed 05/08/11  [2]  , accessed 05/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11.

Counterargument: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases When people take the time and effort to visit the law courts and watch a case, it is a formal, regulated atmosphere. If this were televised, it would become closer to ‘entertainment’ than to fair, legal proceedings. It becomes a human interest story rather than a legitimate court case, where the focus is on moral retribution rather than fair application of the law. Given that high-profile cases can go on for weeks, or even months, even if you were to broadcast every step of the court case it is likely that viewers would only tune in for the climax of the trial. This means that they would miss important (but perhaps comparatively boring) steps which led to that conclusion; it obscures the whole picture of the trial.
Argument: Religious symbols cause problems in schools.  As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1  1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011

Counterargument: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious Intolerant schools cause more problems for not allowing freedom of religious expression. In a multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect, religious groups with distinctive symbols, such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Christians, will be driven out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately.1 As for the worry about safety issues, particularly concerning hair length, most classroom accidents occur when loose, long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame which would not be a problem when hair is held in place under a headscarf.  1 'Religious Rights and Wrongs', The Economist, 4th September 2008, accessed 24th July 2011
Argument: It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in terrorism cases, or other cases surrounding large national security issues.  There are three reasons why this is the case. First, terrorist groups may threaten jury members (see Argument 2 for more detail). Second, terrorism may politicize the jury (see Argument 3 for more detail). Third, the state may be limited in what information it can provide if jurors are present. The government may be unable or unwilling to present classified information for fear of intelligence leaks; for example if it does not want to reveal intelligence methods and sources to the public. This reluctance may make it very difficult to prosecute terrorists. The implication is that the unique national security issues terrorism trials pose may make juries untenable if we ever want to convict terrorists of serious crimes.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Counterargument: eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some First, eliminating trial by jury may make other countries less willing to cooperate with us, reducing the amount of information we have about international terrorism. For example, the United States’ decision to eliminate juries from terrorism trials resulted in other countries being more reluctant to cooperate (e.g. Germany delayed the extradition of two suspected terrorists because of that decision). Second, eliminating trial by jury gives the democratic countries less of a moral high ground in advocating that other countries – often countries from which terrorists come – adopt liberal democratic structures (something which already established liberal democracies generally regard as being in their self interest). Third, refusing to grant trial by jury to suspected terrorists may make other countries less willing to grant our own citizens fair trials when they are abroad.
Argument: 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,

Counterargument: disease health general sex sexuality house believes employees should be compelled Employers have a right to know about issue which will affect their business. An employee with a serious incurable illness which requires a large amount of medication to control is inevitably going to affect the business in a way that the employer will have to know about in order to work around it.  Aside from the fact that HIV status need not be communicated to co-workers, managers and employers already have a duty to prevent harassment and prejudice in any circumstances and this would not change.
Argument: Personal autonomy  Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed.  It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice.

Counterargument: media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should States can and do ban products that are physically or socially harmful – that’s not illiberalism, it is common sense. It clearly does not suggest that non-white women do not have the capacity; white countries such as the USA engage in similar bans for health reasons.  Anyway, In a society with mass media and celebrity-lead marketing campaigns, do people really make entirely autonomous decisions? Consumers almost never have complete information about what they are buying. When they don’t the government has to prevent them from making mistakes that may be harmful to themselves.
Argument: Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment  The purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week.  Therefore, if you make fines proportional to the income someone has, all people feel the impact of the punishment equally, rather than the poor facing a punishment with a harsher impact on them than on the rich.

Counterargument: punishment house would make fines relative income Even if a fine is made proportional to income, you will not get the equality of impact you desire. This is because the impact is not proportional simply to income, but must take into account a number of other factors. For example, someone supporting a family will face a greater impact than someone who is not, because they have a smaller disposable income. Further, a fine based on income ignores overall wealth (i.e. how much money someone actually has: someone might have a lot of assets but not have a high income).  The proposition does not cater for these inequalities, which may well have a much greater skewing effect, and therefore the argument is being applied inconsistently.
Argument: Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office  Far from the worst PR for an office being that a holder of it is on trial, the worst possible public perception of a political institution is that it is wracked with corruption, with it not even theoretically possible to hold its members to account. Prosecuting politicians makes it clear that their office is not a den of impunity, and in the wake of a scandal, restoring public confidence in politicians to come. The public wants their politicians to be accountable and granting immunity harms accountability by denying an option.

Counterargument: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity The difference between the harm to the office of a politician getting away with a crime and the harm from them being tried for that crime is that the trial is inherently public. Short of widespread corruption – the sort that would probably preclude prosecuting politicians anyway – it is unlikely that unpunished wrongdoing in an office will ever become public. A trial, by contrast, creates a media flashpoint that captures the public consciousness. Thus, even if the damage to the integrity of the office is greater per person in cases of unpunished crimes, the act of punishing the crime informs enough people to outweigh the fact that it may not do as much damage per capita.
Argument: People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs  Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.

Counterargument: healthcare deny organs non donors In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.
Argument: If legal principles are abandoned then there is little point in defending the liberties that democratic governments say they are so keen to defend  If we accept that this is a war, then its focus is not so much political control of territory as the preservation of a way of life. It is ridiculous to fight to defend principles of equality and decency using the tool of abandoning them the moment they become inconvenient.  The forces of religious extremism wish to undo 1,400 years of democratic development. We should not assist them in that process by allowing the major powers of the West throw out the most basic principles of the rule of law. Such a move, ultimately, has the potential to be vastly more destructive than the actions of a few fanatics

Counterargument: human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain No amount of legal niceties would bring any comfort to the families of those slaughtered in terrorist atrocities around the world. When you are fighting an enemy that has no time for the European Convention on Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, English common law or the Geneva Convention it is simply impractical to apply those standards.  The basic principle of terrorism is to cause as much fear, panic and destruction as possible. Terrorists do not have a set goal in mind, they are not functioning as rational individuals, and affording them the luxury of treating them as such ignores what they are likely to do.  The great wars of the twentieth century were fought within the confines of post-Enlightenment thought, however extreme that may have become. The wars of the 21st seem set to be Mediaeval in nature, with the promise of paradise rather than provinces as the reward for martyrdom. The defense of the values of liberty and democracy must reflect that new and chilling reality.
Argument: Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.  Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102  2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103

Counterargument: conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house This theory does not transfer to practice successfully. Questions of lifestyle (such as holidays) under the Euro cannot be treated in isolation. Converting to the Euro will have a series of knock –on effects which are all interconnected, affecting and effected by one another. One of these is the inevitability of higher inflation. With increased inflation, there will be increased unemployment; There will be even more British jobless who cannot afford to go on holiday. Moreover, as explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “These savings are a mere fraction of the total cost of going on holiday.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 103
Argument: Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms  Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.

Counterargument: eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. While compensation could be given the cost would be huge; in the UK shootings value to the economy was £1.6billion in 2004. [1]  [1] ‘£1,600,000,000 – the value of shooting’, Shooting Times, 27 September 2006,
Argument: Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.  People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices.  1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely To See an Ad. The New York Times.

Counterargument: media television house believes advertising harmful Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.