mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.  There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review. [1]  Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe.  It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation. [2]  Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem. [3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011
health general weight house would ban junk food schools Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools.  Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means.  Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision.  Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours.  When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1]  It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets.  [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011
science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world.  The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However, This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance. The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs, could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice, called “golden rice”, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing countries. [1]  The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further this technology will become not just useful but necessary.  [1] Black R., GM “golden rice” boosts vitamin A, published 03/25/2005,  , accessed 09/02/2011
health general weight house would ban junk food schools We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body.  We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough.  When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition.  What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.
health general weight house would ban junk food schools Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.  Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it.  The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition.  We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.  What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.  They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.
business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.  [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.  [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.
addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco 1 . Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation 2 .  1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012,   2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009,
health general weight house would ban junk food schools Again, if this is in fact true, then the incentives are already in place for better choices both on the side of students as well as schools.  What the government should do is through subsidizing healthier meals and educational campaigns help both of them make those choices on their own, and not force an unnecessary ban on them.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction.  [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’,
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] .  [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011,  on 16/09/11  [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010,  on 16/09/2011.  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011,  on 09/09/11
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.  [1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers,  on 09/09/11.
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.  We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.  [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11  [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Given the number of people who actually use Facebook [1] and other social networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small [2] . These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to communicate with friends [3] and share photos [4] innocently.  [1] BBC News, ‘Facebook hits 500m user milestone’, 21 July 2010,  09/09/11.  [2] BBC News, ‘UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities’, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic,  on 09/09/11.  [4] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic,  on 09/09/11.
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.  [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007,  on 09/09/11.
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.  Given that the Internet is used as an international [1] and public space [2] , the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’ [3] , demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.  [1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’,   [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media &amp; Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from  on
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.  Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.
computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join Facebook is bad for life satisfaction  Every single day, there are millions of users sharing photographs, messages and comments across Facebook. Unfortunately, this type of “online socialization” that Facebook has initiated is nothing but detrimental to the teenagers, the most frequent users of the platform. The emotion which is most common when staying online is envy. “Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarised their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed.”(1)  Not only do they get envious, but they also lose their self esteem. As a result, they have the tendency to be isolated and find it harder to socialize and make new friends due to the bad impression they have for themselves. In a poll, 53 per cent of the respondents said the launch of social networking sites had changed their behaviour - and of those, 51 per cent said the impact had been negative.(2 ) One study also backs this statistics up by finding that the more the participants used the site, the more their life satisfaction levels declined.(3)  In conclusion, daily use of social networks has a negative effect on the health of all children and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders.(4)  (1) “Facebook is bad for you”, The Economist, Aug 17th 2013   (2) Laura Donnelly “Facebook and Twitter feed anxiety, study finds” The Telegraph, 08 Jul 2012   (3) “Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves' “, BBC News, 15 August 2013   (4) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.  Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship [1] , and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation [2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet [3] , alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves [4] .  [1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central,  on 09/09/11  [2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country &amp; Region’,  on 09/09/11  [4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011,  on 09/09/11
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it – it ignores it. A better way for the government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial speech is to engage with it in a public forum and reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide it from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these websites would feel as if the government is actively protecting them and their rights and punishing those who have violated them, rather than simply closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways. This motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to.
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor People often react poorly to being censored by their governments.  In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government’s constant censorship has led to public outrage [1] , and political satire which heavily criticises the government [2] . Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices.  [1] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011,  on 09/09/11  [2] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011,  on 09/09/11.
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Any information from television or newspapers has already been regulated, so it is not a problem that it may now appear somewhere on the internet. It is exactly because the internet is a forum for free information and expression that so many people engage with it; removing this is a dictatorial move against ordinary citizens who seek information without bias and undue censorship.