mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally  When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs. [1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers  North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.  It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]  [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,   [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states.
global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.
onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbated in the event that terrorists or other dissidents acquire nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, leading to greater fear that nuclear weapons will be used. A better situation is one in which nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated, rather than increased in number. Furthermore, MAD can break down in some cases, when weapon delivery systems are improved. For example, Pakistan’s military has developed miniaturized nuclear warheads for use against tanks and other hard targets on the Indian border, that will leave little nuclear fallout and thus be more likely to be employed in the event of a border skirmish. This development could well cause escalation in future conflict. [1] In addition to the risk of such smaller weapons is the risk of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, as some countries with nuclear weapons might lack second-strike capability. Clearly, possession of nuclear weapons will not guarantee peace, and if war does occur, it will be far more ghastly than any conventional war.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “The World’s Most Dangerous Border”. The Economist.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise  Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war. [1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan was defused by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear weapons, they fought three wars that claimed millions of lives. Relations between the two states, while still far from cordial, have never descended into open war. The defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue. [2] A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet there has never been a war between two nuclear powers. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place.  [1] Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better”. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.  [2] Nizamani, Haider K. 2000. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger.
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax A fat tax levels out the playing field for healthier food  An important reason why people continuously turn to unhealthy, fat, sugar and salt laden food, is the simple fact that it’s often cheaper than a more wholesome meal comprised at least in part of fresh produce.  A study done at the University of Washington found that “when they compared the prices of 370 foods… junk foods not only cost less… but junk food prices are also less likely to rise as a result of inflation.” [1]  A similar conclusion was reached by a group of Australian researchers, who found that the prices of healthy food have risen 20 per cent above inflation, while the harmful counterpart have actually dropped below inflation – as much as 20 per cent below. [2]  Noting that obesity is more prevalent in groups of lower socioeconomic status, we find that the price of food is a substantial incentive for consumption.  Thus it is only reasonable to levy a tax against unhealthy, fatty food in order to give healthy food a fighting chance.  [1] Parker-Pope, T., A High Price for Healthy Food, published 12/5/2007,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] Burns, C., The rising cost of healthy foods, published 10/16/2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter  The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn. [1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US. [2]  The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few.  We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions. [3]  Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death.  Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature. [4]  Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for.  [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006,  , accessed, 9/14/2011  [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax It hits the most vulnerable part of society hardest  The practical consequence of an additional tax on what the government considers fatty unhealthy food will disproportionately affect the poorest part of the population, who often turn to such food due to economic constraints.  These were the concerns that stopped the Romanian government from introducing a fat tax in 2010. Experts there argued, that the countries people keep turning to junk food simply because they are poor and cannot afford the more expensive fresh produce. What such a fat tax would do is eliminate a very important source of calories from the society’s economic reach and replace the current diet with an even more nutritionally unbalanced one. Even the WHO described such policies as “regressive from an equity perspective.” [1]  Clearly, the government should be focusing its efforts on making healthy fresh produce more accessible and not on making food in general, regardless if it’s considered healthy or not, less accessible for the most vulnerable in our society.  [1] Stracansky, P., 'Fat Tax' May Hurt Poor, published 8/8/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax Choosing to introduce a new policy based on experience with a different, seemingly similar case, is not a good idea.  Tobacco and fatty food are vastly different things for a couple of reasons. An obvious one is the fact that fat is in fact necessary nourishment, even the trans-fat kind. Cigarettes on the other hand have absolutely no value to a persons’ health – their detrimental impact is quite infamous.  A different one is the importance of dosage. While smoking is harmful in all doses, indulging in larger amounts of fatty food isn’t. Consuming what we consider “junk food” in moderation has no ill effect on health. [1] This results in legislating for any kind of fat tax much more difficult as the tax needs to allow consuming fat in moderation while preventing excess.  [1] Roberts A., Let Them Eat Cake (Why Junk Food Is OK For Kids, In Moderation), published 5/9/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax While the tax might level out the playing field, it does so to the detriment of those that would need our protection the most.  Instead of making healthy food more accessible, we would make all foods less accessible – a truly nonsensical and harmful situation that we should do our utmost to avoid. Moreover, given that many individuals in lower socio-economic groups will have become used to eating “junk” food, when prices rise they will not necessarily move to the healthier alternative. It is likely that they will stick to what they know, and end up paying more from their limited budgets for it. The end result is likely to be that these people will still buy junk food first but will pay more and thus will not be able to afford any healthier foods.
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax Even if this policy might cause some families to spend more on their food – even more than they feel like they can afford – it still is more important to start significantly dealing with the obesity epidemic. We feel that nothing short of forcing these low income families – which are also the ones where obesity is most prevalent – to finally change their eating habits will make a dent in the current trend.  But there is a silver lining here. These are also the families that are afflicted most by obesity related diseases. Thus spending a couple dollars more on food now will – necessarily – save them tens of thousands in the form of medical bills.  Reducing obesity will also make them more productive at work and reduce their absenteeism, again offsetting the costs of this tax. [1]  We should look at this tax as a form of paying it forward – spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future.  [1] ACOEM, Obesity Linked To Reduced Productivity At Work, published 1/9/2008,  , accessed 9/14/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax Though one might be inclined to agree with the statement, that a fat tax on its own would be insufficient to solve the problem of rising obesity, it is also simply not the case.  There are numerous educational campaigns underway, from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s school dinners to the first ladies ‘Let’s move’ that are effectively targeting that aspect of the fight against obesity.  What is needed to balance these is tangible action by the government that is able to underwrite and solidify what these campaigns are saying. In short, to help our society practice what we preach.
health general weight house would ban junk food schools Better nutrition leads to better students.  There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance. [1] A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average. [2]  This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status.  The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students. [3]  [1] CDC, 'Student Health and Academic Achievement', 19 October 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Too much fast food ‘harms children’s test scores’’, The Telegraph, 22 May 2009,  accessed 20 September 2011  [3] Society for the Advancement of Education, 'Overweight students cost schools plenty', December 2004,  , 9/11/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems. [1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening.  It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age.  It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer? [2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well?  [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011
tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax A fat tax infringes on individual choice  Introducing such a tax would constitute an overstepping of the government’s authority. The role of government in a society should not expand further than providing basic services such as education, legal protection, i.e. only the services necessary for a society to function and for the individual’s rights to be protected.  Such a specific tax is completely uncalled for and very unreasonable in the context of a fair society with a government that knows its place in it.  Protecting the individual should go no further than the protection against the actions of a third person. For instance: we can all agree that governments should put measures in place to protect us from thieves, scammers, etc. But should it also protect us from frivolous spending? Limit us in the number of credit cards we can own? Tell us how we can invest our money?  Of course not. But what this tax does is exactly that – it is punishing the citizens for a specific choice they are making by artificially inflating its cost.  Thus it is clear that levying such a tax against a specific choice an individual should be able to legitimately make is a clear overstepping of the government’s authority. [1]  [1] Wilkinson, W., Tax the fat, not their food, published 7/26/2011,  , accessed 12/9/2011
science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms The immoral behavior of some people towards this technology is not a reason to ban it unless it can be shown that more harm than good is caused. This research is important to deal with global climate change which is reducing the landmass of the earth that can grow food, whilst the global population is rising.  Regulation may be better than outright banning, as we do with many aspects of business. For example gene patenting and the discovery of new genes is an area very similar to genetically modified foods. In the US gene patenting is allowed and when the company Myriad Genetics found the gene BRCA1 and BRCA2 (connected with breast cancer) and made too many restrictions on the use of it (so it hurt people in general), the court stepped in and allowed others to use it, gave them more rights over the “patented product”. [1] With this we see, that there can always be regulation of products if a company attempts to profit out of the misery of others. The same can be done with GMOs. If the company is demanding too high prices, preventing farmers from doing their work, the courts and legal system can always step in. Just because one company acts unethically, this does not mean that all must. There is a market for ethical consumerism, so the actions of a few corporations are not a reason to ban GMOs entirely.  [1] Nature.com, Testing time for gene patents, published 04/15/2010,  , accessed 09/02/2011