bpHigh/BIRCO_ArguAna_Without_Task_Awareness huggingface dataset:
Argument: The government has a right to make decisions in the best interest of the people  Man is a social being. Therefore people live in communities where decisions that affect the many, are taken by representatives of the many. Thus, a social contract exists between the people and their government. [1] In exchange for part of their autonomy and freedom, the government ensures that policies are made in the best interest of people, even if this might come at the expense of short-term interests for some individuals. This is a typical example of this kind of case. The trend is emptying the countryside, stopping the production of agricultural goods and hollowing the amenities provided by the cities. Even if each individual has a personal incentive to move to the cities, the harm to the cities is greater than their accumulated individual gains. It is in these cases that the state must act to protect its people and ensure long term benefits.  [1] D'Agostino, Fred, Gaus, Gerald and Thrasher, John, "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Counterargument: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should The government has a right to make some decisions on behalf of the people, but not any decision. Once the state acts against one group of people to further the interest of an already privileged group of people it loses this right as the state exists to protect everyone in society not just the majority or a privileged group. This is precisely the case in this motion. People who live in rural areas are already disenfranchised and condemned to terrible conditions, and the proposal only serves those who want their comfortable bourgeois life to be even more comfortable.
Argument: Run education campaigns instead  Education is an alternative. Campaigns such as #darkisbeautiful (dark is beautiful) in India are the model for advancing equality and marginalizing colourism in India. The campaign has had some success attracting stars, including some such as Vishaka Sing who have modelled for fairness creams, to campaign against the prejudice against darker skin tones. [1]  The heavy hand of legislation is not the correct tool – other methods from social media campaigns to changing practices in the fashion, beauty and media industries (such as has occurred in Dakar Fashion Week [2] ) will reduce the cultural demand.  [1] Krupa, Lakshmi, ‘Dark is beautiful’, The Hindu, 8 September 2013,   [2] Reuters, “Dakar fashion week bans models who use skin lightning cream”, South China Morning Post, 01 July 2013,

Counterargument: media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should Educational campaigns can and do work on many issues. However, they can only do so much in terms of making genuine progress. If you want to change attitudes – generally subconscious – more concrete action is needed. Legislation affects everyone while a campaign will only ever reach comparatively small numbers.
Argument: Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece  There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen:  The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find.  The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3]  These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4]  [1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [3] ibid  [4] Arghyrou, Michael: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,

Counterargument: conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2]  [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [2] Becker, Garry: “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012,
Argument: Small size makes for ease  The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles

Counterargument: imate water international africa global house believes seychelles should States can get very worked up about very small pieces of land. Size appears to matter little when the issue is one of sovereignty. For that matter neither does the worth of the land or the population living on it. A great many of the world’s hot spots are over very small areas of land often with small or non-existent populations such as Gibraltar, Falklands, Senkaku, and the islands of the South China Sea.
Argument: We instinctively know killing is wrong  While sometimes our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong are not accurate they are needed when thinking about morality. If a theory is well argued and thought out but goes against our feelings as to what is right and wrong then we will dismiss it. Most people have the feeling that killing is wrong and so to partake in any action that leads to the death of another is also wrong.

Counterargument: ethics life kill one save many junior Our feelings are clouded by the way the situation is presented and so we cannot use feeling as a way to decide what to do. For example, most people instinctively say that they would pull the lever to save the five people. However, if the case is presented differently and to save the five people you have to push a man onto the track to stop the train then most people will say not to do it. The two situations are morally identical; the only change is the physical act that needs to be done. Therefore it is clear that our feelings can change despite the principle staying the same.
Argument: Prevents a competitor from building a high tech military  The arms ban is very effective in preventing the Chinese military gaining access to the best modern technologies. A convincing code of conduct has yet to be drawn up, but even if it looks very tight, it has a major flaw. Individual EU member states will be able to judge for themselves whether a proposed arms sale breaks the code. Past experience suggests that when exports are at stake, perhaps with the risk of job losses in an election year, then politicians interpret codes like this very loosely, so for example despite this code UK arms exports may have been used in the conflict against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. [1] This will be made worse by the thought of an EU state that if it refuses a particular military sale to China, then another member state will be more flexible. This means that each individual member will make decisions based upon what is best for it individually and not think of what is best for the Union as a whole – such as providing high tech weapons that bring in export dollars but helps undermine security.  [1] Prince, Rosa, ‘UK arms used against civilians in Sri Lanka and Gaza’, 2009.

Counterargument: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China is increasingly able to develop its own high tech weapons so by continuing to have a ban in place will make very little difference to China’s capacity to build high tech weapons. This is shown by China’s unveiling of a prototype stealth fighter the J-20. [1] Even if the code of conduct is not watertight neither is the current arms ban as some weapons are still sold in spite of the ban.  [1] Foster, Peter, ‘China stealth fighter a ‘masterpiece’ of homegrown technology’, 2011.
Argument: Porn is inherently dehumanising  Pornography necessarily objectifies people: it presents a sexual desire, an urge, which is immediately attended by another person, often performing acts which we would find demeaning, until the original urge is satisfied. The use of others for pleasure treats them as means to one’s own ends, and denies them any value as rational subjects with a will of their own. This affects, naturally, the participants in pornography, but also their viewers who adopt corrupted notions of what to value in others, and furthermore other women who are later affected by men using the same metric to interact with them.

Counterargument: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Pornography does not objectify people, for they are portrayed as acting. Objects do not act, subjects do.  Telling people what they cannot do is a greater loss of identity than any way by which they may be portrayed by pornography, for only the latter can be challenged.  Sex is not negative towards women, repression is, sex is liberating not dehumanizing! The only thing that is dehumanizing is the belief that natural impulses as sex should have negative moral conotation, including the expression of it(in this case porn).
Argument: The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.  When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [1]  [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”.

Counterargument: global house believes united nations has failed The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model.  It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create.
Argument: People ought to donate their organs anyway  Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.

Counterargument: healthcare deny organs non donors Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.
Argument: Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated  Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors. [1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban, [2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter.  In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack. [3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other.  [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010,   [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997,   [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011,

Counterargument: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks While there are bans on certain weapons these are because such weapons are considered beyond the pale. This is either because they are horrifying as in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or indiscriminate as with land mines. This does not apply to cyber warfare. Other regulations similarly do not provide a good parallel as the Geneva conventions seek to limit the effects of armed conflict a similar treaty is clearly not necessary for cyber-conflict because the effects will already be limited by the type of conflict. Ultimately cyber-attacks are much more akin to espionage and are not regulated because they are small scale, localised, and have limited effects as well as being difficult to trace.
Argument: Free trade is good for development and growth.  Free trade essentially removes barriers for companies to do business across countries and regions. This leads to competition between countries in those regions, and between companies and industries in those countries. It leads to the sharing of innovation, drives down the cost of production, and allows workers to move freely where their labour and skills are needed. This is good for all those involved in the transaction. It is good for companies, because they have more resources and markets at their disposal, good for consumers, because competition between companies drives down prices and drives the innovation that improves products, and it is good for workers, because they have greater opportunities to find employment for their labour and skills [1] .  [1] DanBen-David, Håkan Nordström, LAlanWinters. “Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty”. World Trade Organization. 1999.

Counterargument: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Free trade does not benefit everyone equally. Rich corporations from developed countries are not interested in growth in developing nations; they are interested in making profits. They just view developing nations as sources for cheap labour and materials, that can be harnessed more easily, due to low levels of environmental and labour regulation. For example, the so-called Maquiladoras in Mexico, which were put in place by NAFTA were rife with labour and environmental violations [1] . Therefore, free trade agreements between rich and poor countries can trap developing nations in the economic cycle as raw material providers, thus preventing them from developing their own national industries.  [1] Human Rights Watch. ”Mexico’s Maquiladoras. Abuses Against Women Workers.” 16 August 1996.
Argument: Major changes need to be put to the people and the people must be trusted.  The Lisbon Treaty significantly affects the workings of each member country. It gives the European Union a legal personality, allowing it to sign international agreements and member countries are now made subject to majority voting [1]. The Lisbon Treaty does not only affect international policies, criminal law and national justice systems, it also gives power over to the Commission and European Court. Such major changes must be put to popular vote, the citizens of each EU member state have a right to legitimise or reject these changes that push for a more centralized European superstate. Furthermore the will of the people needs to be trusted, if a reform is intentionally ambiguous and complicated, which was one of the criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty [2], it is the job of the politician to explain the cause to the public. Voters should be included in the debate and key issues need to be highlighted not just ignored.  [1] European Commission, Your Guide to the Lisbon Treaty, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Foley, Kathy, ‘Lisbon treat: yes, no or eh?’, Sunday Times (13 January 2008).

Counterargument: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty The Lisbon Treaty is limited in significance and has less problematic superstate aspects that the Constitutional treaty of 2004 such as an official flag, anthem and bill of citizen's rights [1]. The Constitution wanted to found the European Union on an entirely new basis, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is a conventional amending Treaty. It is this fundamental difference that justifies the lack of referendum for the Lisbon Treaty when it was essential for the ratification of the Constitution. However the association with the previous Treaty would have seen the public wary and progress stifled as a result. The Lisbon Treaty was more concerned with technical reforms than constitutional significance and therefore did not need the ratification of the national electorates. The result of a referendum is more likely to reflect public opinion on the current government than on the proposed reforms. Furthermore on important foreign policy issues the elected government is better informed to make decisions than the electorate [2].  [1] BBC News, ‘EU leaders sign landmark treaty’, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011
Argument: Where are the men?  Is the feminisation of labour emerging with a de-masculinisation of jobs? If so, how do women cope in the work environment? Are methods being integrated to ensure a just work environment is maintained?  Overa’s (2007) study on gender relations within the informal economy indicates how tensions emerge with women and men being forced into similar occupations. The informal economy of retail trade in Ghana is becoming overcrowded as men enter into female jobs; competition is causing reductions in returns, and further, frustrations are rising against the state. Therefore if more women are entering male jobs, what are the reactions?

Counterargument: economic policy international africa society gender house believes feminisation Within Gender and Development the importance of bringing men into the picture of gender discrimination has been recognised. Therefore working with men will change enable gender roles to be changed.