mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1]  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)
punishment house would make fines relative income The rich will resent this  The rich will feel like they are receiving an unfair, ‘greater’ punishment. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich just as is the case with progressive taxation which is often attacked as an assault on ‘wealth creation’.1  This may well increase the extent to which they break the law, because if you perceive the law to be applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider it to be making an accurate assessment of whether an action is right or wrong in any given situation.  That is, in situations where you are unlikely to be caught committing a crime, the deterrent is clearly not the possible punishment (which you won’t face, because you won’t be caught). Rather, the deterrent is the extent to which you believe the illegal action to be morally wrong. If you believe a law is applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider the prohibited action to be actually, morally wrong, and therefore more likely to commit that act.  1 Cianfrocca, Francis, ‘Wealth Creation Under Attack’, Commentary, June 2009,
ethics life house believes right die Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.  When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people [i] . It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing.  Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments.  However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice.  The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans.  [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its A code of conduct is needed not a ban  The current arms ban is purely symbolic. China is already able to buy a range of military items from Europe ($555 million worth in 2003) [1] and the USA, which has a similar "ban" on weapons sales to China. This is because the EU’s current ban is not legally binding and it is up to each EU member to define and implement the embargo meaning the embargo is not effective. [2] An arms ban is therefore a blunt instrument that does not work. Instead future sales should be regulated by a tough EU code of conduct which prevents military equipment being sold to any state which might use it for external aggression or internal repression. Such a code of conduct for all arms exports has already existed since 1998. [3] Such a code of conduct will be a much better guarantee that China is not sold arms unless EU states are sure they will not be misused.  [1] Tkacik, ‘E.U. Leadership Finds Little Public Support for Lifting China Arms Ban’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p5.   [3] Ibid, p21
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.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its The arms ban is an anachronism - only China, Myanmar and Zimbabwe are singled out by the EU in this way from all the regimes in the world. [1] China is therefore right to call this policy as showing a “political prejudice against China” [2] as many other nations have perpetrated similar human rights violations. This is pointlessly offensive to the Chinese government and people, who see it as political discrimination against them, and it should be lifted. The new code of conduct should be sufficient to prevent worries that European weaponry will be used to repress demonstrations as it prohibits exports where there is a “Risk that export would be used for internal repression or where the recipient country has engaged in serious violations of human rights”. [3]  [1] BBC News, ‘EU China arms ban ’to be lifted’’, 2005.   [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010.   [3] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p21.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Lifting the arms ban will not strengthen China militarily. Not only would sales be restricted by the new code of conduct, but China’s Ambassador to the European Union has also clearly reiterated "We have stated several times that we do not intend to buy European military equipment" as "We cannot afford to buy such expensive weapons". [1] Even if China was sold high-tech European equipment, this could even be beneficial for the EU as it would make China dependent on the EU for such items and make it less likely to pursue its own research and development programmes.  [1] Rufino, Filipe and Vucheva, Elitsa, ‘EU Arms Embargo is ‘political discrimination, says Chinese Ambassador’, 2005.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China is a threat to regional stability  China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat. [1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan, [2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days, [3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence. [4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6, [5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict.  [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010.   [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010.   [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005.   [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its There is no reason to strengthen China militarily  Lifting the arms ban will strengthen China militarily. The US fears less the Chinese purchase of EU weaponry and armour, than that the regime will get hold of advanced communications and control systems, as well as high-technology guidance systems, night-vision equipment, etc. [1] - all of which would make its existing military far more effective. Even if the EU is reluctant to sell such material to China, the possibility will give the Chinese leverage in negotiations with existing suppliers like Israel and Russia, who will feel under more pressure to sell China their most modern technology. In time, China's ability to "reverse engineer" high-technology equipment will also boost their own military research and development programmes. [2]  [1] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p16.   [2] Page, Jeremy, ‘China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets’, 2010.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security. It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons. [1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2 ]  [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005.   [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Lifting the ban will damage relations with the U.S.  Even if it was in Europe's interest to sell arms to China, the damage from upsetting the United States by lifting the arms ban would be much greater. This is partly because America takes the human rights situation in China more seriously, but mostly because the USA has a major commitment to the freedom of Taiwan. If China did attack the island, America would almost certainly intervene. As the US State Department has said in relation to lifting the ban, "We don't want to see a situation where American forces face European technologies." [1] Congress has already threatened to restrict technology transfers to Europe if the ban is removed. [2] For fear of this, BAE Systems, one of Europe's largest defence firms, has said that it would not sell to China even if the ban was lifted. [3]  [1] Brinkley, Joel, ‘Rice Sounds a Theme in Visit to Beijing Protestant Church’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p34-5.   [3] Evans, Michael et al., ‘British arms firms will spurn China if embargo ends’, 2005.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its The arms ban is still necessary  The European Union should stick to its principles. The arms ban was imposed for a reason - the massacre of students demonstrating for democracy and openness in 1989. Nothing China has done since shows it regrets its savage actions in Tiananmen Square - indeed many of the demonstrators are still in prison today. [1] If the ban is lifted, the EU will be implying that it should never have placed the ban on arms sales in the first place, and signalling that China can do what it likes to its own people without fear of EU objections. Indeed if there is an end to the arms ban, the next time that peaceful demonstrators are attacked by the armed forces in China, they may be able to do it with European weapons. Overall, China's human rights record is still very bad. It still hasn't ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is regularly criticised by Amnesty International [2] and Human Rights Watch [3] for imprisoning political and religious activists without trial. This is not a state that should be rewarded with EU favours.  [1] Jiang, Shao, ‘List of “June Fourth Tiananmen Prisoners” still held in custody and their backgrounds’, 2010.   [2] Amnesty International, ‘Annual Report 2011 China’, 2011.   [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘China’
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China will simply get similar products elsewhere  In a global marketplace, if EU states don't sell China arms, others will. Russia and Israel [1] already sell China much high-tech military material, between 2001 and 2010 Russia sold over $16billion of arms to China. [2] As Israel is a key American ally, US criticism of Europe over lifting this ban is particularly unfair. It is in Europe's economic interest to gain part of the huge Chinese market and so safeguard European jobs. And if European arms industries cannot find export markets, their production for domestic military forces is simply not enough to support the cost of research and development, [3] so our indigenous arms sector may collapse.  [1] BBC News, ‘US ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale’, 2004.   [2] Ottens, Nick, ‘Russian Arms Sales to China Drying Up’, 2010.   [3] Ashbourne, Alex, ‘Opening the US Defence Market’, 2011, p1.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its A Ban that is not very effective is better than no ban at all. That the Chinese are so determined to get the ban lifted shows that it does make a difference and is therefore worth keeping. Either way the European Union should not give it up for nothing. Rather as the Danish lead opposition to lifting the ban argues "Any decision to lift the arms embargo must be linked to specific Chinese steps on human rights." [1]  [1] EUobserver, ‘Leaked cable shows fragility of EU arms ban on China’, 2011.
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its The idea of a "strategic partnership" with China is both vague and cause for concern. It is unclear what such a partnership would involve and questionable whether it is desirable. On one hand, by lifting the arms ban the EU will be showing that it favours stability over democracy and profit over principle. Other repressive regimes and would-be tyrants will surely take note. On the other hand it is unclear what actual harm there is to Europe from keeping the ban in place. Despite Chinese rhetoric about it damaging their trading relationship with the EU, it is not clear how European states are disadvantaged compared to other countries, as mentioned China is the EU’s largest trade partner already. As a WTO member China is committed to further market opening anyway, [1] and as a member of the UN Security Council it is in its own interests to cooperate with others for mutual benefit.  [1] Kim, Ki Hee, ‘China’s Entry Into WTO And Its Impact ON EU’, 2004
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Cooperation has very little to do with influence in international affairs, what matters is how aligned the national interests of the two powers are. This is the case with Russia and China where both want to blunt western power, prevent separatism, and endorse what Russia calls ‘sovereign democracy’ which means a rejection of notions of universal human rights. [1] The areas that the EU most wants progress on among the least likely for there to be Chinese action without any kind of incentive. Lifting the ban will likely help with trade, something that China sees as being in its interest, but will make little difference to China’s policies towards human rights and other areas where it considers any criticism to be outside interference.  [1] Menon, Rajan, ‘The China-Russia Relationship’, 2009, pp.13-15.
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power  Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state.  In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another.  However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights.  The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Lifting the ban may briefly result in condemnation from the United States but it is unlikely to damage relations over the long term. The United States and Europe are strong allies in NATO and both accept that from time to time one partner will do things the other does not like.
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc The right for Americans to bear arms used to be important for symbolic reasons. However, now such a symbol does not serve to act in the same way that it once did. It was once realistic that American citizens would be able to counteract the monopoly of violence that the state has. However, in this age of modern warfare, such power simply does not exist in any real form any more. Weapons as symbols in this way are just symbolic of the loss of power that the citizens of the U.S. have undergone over time and further are symbolic of a fruitless endeavour in resistance of the state through violent means. The fact that the citizens of America feel the need to resort to violence as a symbol for the ability to stand up to the state harms what the state stands up for now, which is change through peaceful and democratic protest.  Further, even if the right to bear arms was still symbolic in a positive way, the good feeling such a symbol gives simply does not compare to the number of lives lost to things such as gun violence year on year.11
europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China can’t be ignored  Europe has a developing strategic partnership with China. China is Europe’s largest trading partner with EU exports in goods of €113.1billiion and imports of €281.9billion and in services of €20.2billion and €16.3billion respectively, [1] and as China's rapid growth continues it is playing an increasingly important part in the global economy and in international affairs. Clearly it is in the EU's interests to work together with this emerging superpower. Ma Zhaoxu a Foreign Ministry spokesman called it ‘the obstacle to the sound growth of the China-EU relationship,’ [2] after more than fifteen years, it is time to lift it. China has repeatedly said that it will never enjoy a normal trading relationship with the EU until the ban is lifted. Europe’s first responsibility is to its own citizens economic wellbeing which would benefit from greater trade ties between China and the European Union.  [1] European Commission, ‘China’, 2011   [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010