mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available  There are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.
university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding  For most universities even if the government is generous with funding it will still need for some projects require private funding. When providing money for research projects the government often requires cost sharing so the university needs to find other sources of funding. [1] Third parties however are unlikely to be willing to help provide funding for research if they know that all the results of that research will be made open to anyone and everyone. These businesses are funding specific research to solve a particular problem with the intention of profiting from the result. Even if universities themselves don’t want to profit from their research they cannot ignore the private funding as it is rapidly growing, up 250% in the U.S. from 1985-2005, while the government support is shrinking. [2]  [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research &amp; Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan.   [2] Schindler, Adam, “Follow the Money Corporate funding of university research”, Berkley Science Review, Issue 13.
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable  A graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable  A graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Every human being has a right to life  Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.  [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005,  (accessed 4/6/2011)  [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008,  (accessed 6/6/2011)
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.' [1]  [1] Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at  (accessed 4/6/2011).
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.  [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35.  (accessed 4/6/2011)
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should It would have a damaging effect on society  Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and therefore performing euthanasia without their consent. [1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die. [2]  [1] The case against, religiouseducation.co.uik  (accessed 4/6/2011).  [2] Barbara Ellen, Who is to judge which lives are worth living?, guardian.co.uk, 17 April 2011  (accessed 6/6/2011)
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine.  [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000  (accessed 6/6/2011)
ethics life house believes right die Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.  It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.
ethics life house believes right die The issue that Op highlights is the matter of intention, that the courts should not be interested in why someone took the decision to kill another person. However, that does not apply here as the intention is that of the person who has chosen to die. In a majority of nations suicide is already legal – the most spectacular exception to this being North Korea, a country with, otherwise, a fairly relaxed approach to the deaths of its citizens. Accepting the right to die simply extends the ability to do so to those who currently are incapable of performing the necessary procedure themselves [i] .  [i] BBC News Website. Right-to-die law appalling, says Health Minister Anna Soubry. 8 September 2012.
ethics life house believes right die There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.  By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden.  [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.
law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence We are all dying  Death is an inevitable fact of life. We will all die. Suicide is therefore not a matter of choosing between life and death per se, but of choosing the time and manner of death one wishes. We would all prefer a painless death over a slow and agonising one, and it is better to be able to prepare oneself and if possible anyone else who will be affected, so why should the difference between the two be a matter of luck and not one of choice?
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help  The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006, [1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.  [1] Wikipedia, "Suicide of Megan Meier", en.wikipedia.org,  (accessed 6/6/2011)
ethics life house believes right die This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.
law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life.
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life.  [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23
law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence Suicide is different from abortion or cloning or euthanasia in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his choice about the way he lives (and by extension, when he dies). So we can deny any link to these other phenomena. In addition, we can defend suicide on the same basis as one might plausibly and robustly defend all the others: on the basis of the value of individual autonomy. Human dignity is a value that is inextricably linked to the free exercise of individual autonomy; it is the absence of autonomy and the domination of another man over the slave that makes slavery a clear violation of basic human dignity.
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Only God can give and take away life  Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” [1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other human beings are given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18. [2]  [1] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)  [2] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)
disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused  The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1]  [1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk  (accessed on 4/6/2011)