mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths  The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
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,
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, or converted from replica firearms rather than being stolen from registered owners.
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which they can protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence  Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms There are substantial exceptions to that correlation, for example Japan has the world’s 5th highest suicide rate but very low gun ownership. [1]  As the proposition concedes, the availability of firearms is not a direct cause of suicide and thus the restriction of availability of firearms can only have a marginal effect on the suicide rate.  [1]
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings of the offender. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result.  Moreover the value of guns for self-defence is overrated. A firearm kept in the home for self-defence is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide than against an unlawful intruder. [1]  [1] Drinan, Robert F. ‘Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil’. The Civil Liberties Review. August/September 1976
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms The only function of a gun is to kill  The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old. [1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.  [1 ‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010,
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide  There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced.  Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced. [1] The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations.  [1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership  Much like the failure of the prohibition era to stop alcohol consumption, trying to restrict the use of guns that are already widely owned and prevalent in a society is an impossible task. [1]  The people who intend to use guns for illegitimate purposes are obviously unconcerned with the fact that it is illegal to acquire the guns in the first place in countries where this is already the case such as in the UK . [2] [3]  [1] Kates, Don B. ‘Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control’. The Civil Liberties Review. June/July 1976   [2] The Independent. ‘Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle’. 4th September 2005.   [3] The Guardian. ‘Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you’ 30th August 2008.
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. The high levels of firearm availability in Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant contributory factors in allowing for a viable insurrection to form which has the potential to generate the political pressure necessary to cause the withdrawal of foreign occupiers.  Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.  [1] See also DIstricxt of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Firstly, the deterrence effect created by guns disappears if the use of guns is considered normal behaviour among the populace. Many violent and opportunistic crimes are committed out of necessity. They are not based on a rational calculus of the sort that side opposition discusses. In a society where gun use is normalised, criminals are more likely to view death as a hazard of their occupation, similar to arrest and imprisonment. In these circumstances, the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership will quickly abate, overridden by desperation. Further, if crimes are being committed by gangs then often, need for respect from the gangs or fear of reprisal will simply override any beliefs regarding deterrence. Finally, criminals are very careful to pick actors who aren’t likely to be well armed and to do so in secluded places. As such, it is incredibly unlikely that they will be deterred from crime.  Secondly, people are likely to have guns holstered. This means that should they be mugged by a criminal they will be unable to retrieve their weapons from their holsters because any movement toward the holster will likely result in them being shot. As such, any concept of a parity of power between actors simply does not exist under the status quo
eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written in the age of horse and musket, where a private citizen could gain access to the same (or even better) weaponry that the state did.  Unless the opposition want to remove all barriers on gun ownership completely, no armed citizenry can seriously compete with a modern military armed with tanks, drones and precision weaponry. Popular resistance movements rely upon creating an unaffordable political cost to maintaining the occupation (e.g. The US was eventually forced from Vietnam, despite winning virtually every major battle of the war), but this assumes that the occupying power is vulnerable to that kind of pressure. An undemocratic invader or a domestic tyranny will happily slaughter dissidents with impunity (see the pre-intervention stages of the Libyan civil-war and the 2011 Syrian uprising).
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths  Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.5  It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street.
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC  Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has.  It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state.  In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked.  Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.2
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence.  Under the status quo handguns are legal. This means that should a criminal initially wish to consider mugging someone he has to consider the possibility that he might be shot should he choose to take this action. A visceral fear of death and injury means that a significant number of criminals will be deterred from engaging in burglaries, violent robberies or muggings if they suspect that they might face armed resistance. As such the presence of handguns within a community contributes to the general deterrence of crime within that community.7  Secondly, should someone try to attack someone else with a handgun, if the other person is armed then they are in a much better position to negotiate with their attacker and prevent harm to either party. Creating a public culture in which handguns are held and used sensibly, and in which firearms training is widely available, allows a parity of power to be created between ordinary citizens and criminals. However, this parity of power is changed in favour of the defender. This is because there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. If the mugger is caught by another citizen then it is possible that citizen will also have a handgun leading to a situation where the mugger will likely be arrested or risk death.8  Finally, the normalisation of handguns in society means that people are less likely to panic should they be attacked by a mugger who has one. Deaths from mugging can often be caused by the victim simply panicking in response to the mugger. Shots are often fired by desperate and unstable assailants who are unprepared for their victim’s reaction. In a society acclimatised to handguns and aware of the risk they present, incidents of this type- fuelled by panic, uncertainty and fear- are much less likely to occur.
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Handguns are uniquely dangerous when compared with other weapons  Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them.  Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients.  As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.4
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion.  In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens.  If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves.  The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.3
business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression Every leisure industry attracts a few troubled individuals who take the activity to harmful extremes. For every thousand drinkers there are a few alcoholics. Similarly some sports fans are hooligans. Those who gamble enough to harm themselves would be those who would gamble in casinos if the internet option was not available.
crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc The DC Handgun ban is inconsistent with other legislation in the U.S.  A change in legislation in DC that is markedly different from everywhere else in the U.S. is harmful. Whilst the constitution might be amended to give a specific change for DC, the rest of the U.S. will still be able to bear arms. The point of the American constitution is that it is meant to give an even field to all citizens under the law. Minor differences between people within different states is acceptable; owing to specific needs of specific states and all state legislation must be proved to be constitutional anyway. This difference is specifically problematic because of the nature of its interactions with both the constitution and the law.  This change is harmful because the state is dependent upon consistency within the law and perception of the law as being a fair mechanism for all people. Large inconsistencies within the law should not be tolerated as such inconsistencies often bring into debate the legitimacy of the state’s legal code. This is problematic as such debates and inconsistencies can lead to confusion about the reach of the law as well as doubt in the legitimacy of the law. The law is dependent upon citizens understanding and subscribing to the legal code, otherwise legal systems might suffer from problems such as people simply not reporting crime to the police owing to their doubt in the legal system and its ability to protect them, or otherwise law abiding citizens from other areas of the country inadvertently breaking the law by bringing guns into D.C.
media television house believes advertising harmful There are too many advertisements in everyday life.  The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement.  1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad. New York Times.
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.
media television house believes advertising harmful Advertising helps us choose between different goods.  Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available.
media television house believes advertising harmful Though there are a great many advertisements in everyday life, there are not so many that they can't simply be ignored. Advertisements attempt to get you to buy a product, if you're not interested, then don't buy the product. For every person who finds all the advertisements stressful, another person finds them enjoyable and something to read or watch while they make their daily journey to work or school. Out of control could mean simply that customers think businesses are spending too much on advertising. Without proof that the number of advertisements is having a negative effect, the point is worthless.
media television house believes advertising harmful Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.  If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.
media television house believes advertising harmful Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.  Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole.