mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas.  Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas.  Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies.  This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect.  All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development.
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process  Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies.  Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets [1] , i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three. [2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno, [3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own.  This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion.  [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007,   [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151   [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011,
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates.  The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidate’s support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive.
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular This is an unjust use of unelected power  Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama. [1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so.  Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information).  This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due.  [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012,
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised  Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries.  Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics [1] . Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans [2] ) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned).  [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206  [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74,
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular The accusation of ‘dumbing down’ is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require ‘dumbing down’, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians’ ideas are reaching more voters!  For example, the ‘war on women,’ has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention [1] . Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was ‘dumbed down’ it means that it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about. Surely, that cannot be a bad thing.  It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all. [2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote.  [1] ‘Eva Longoria Speech Draws Cheers At Democratic National Convention’, Huffington Post, 6 September 2012,   [2] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘ The Oprah Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens to vote consistently’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.68, No.4, November 2006, pp.946-959, p.955,
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way.  Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population.
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped.  Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence.
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests  There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem.  Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact.  Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis.  [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012,   [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012,
edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular This ‘injustice’ needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities.  You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with).  Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence ‘effectively have more votes’. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains.  All this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing.  [1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior People will die if we don’t do animal testing  Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Many of these drugs are “me too” drugs – ones with a slight change that doesn’t make much difference to an existing drug. [14] So often the benefits from animal testing are marginal, and even if there was a slight increase in human suffering, it would be worth it based on the animal suffering saved.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved  Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. [1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.  [1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated.  The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban.  [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. &amp; Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.
education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing Prevent drug use  There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds [1] . The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential.  Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures.  Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments.  Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.
ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior Many of these drugs are “me too” drugs – ones with a slight change that doesn’t make much difference to an existing drug. [14] So often the benefits from animal testing are marginal, and even if there was a slight increase in human suffering, it would be worth it based on the animal suffering saved.