mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada Quebec would not be able to be economically viable on its own.  Quebec independence simply will not work because Quebec would not be financially viable as an independent economy.  Quebec has been financially dependent on the rest of Canada for years [1] specifically being dependent on “have” provinces such as Alberta to prop-up its economy as a “have-not” provinces through equalization payments [2] . Moreover, all financial indicators point to the situation staying as it is or worsening, with no signs of improvement in the economy visible [3] .  If Quebec were to gain independence, it simply would not be able to sustain itself as an independent country. Quality of life would necessarily have to drop for all those living in Quebec and the economy would only crash further as confidence in it would dwindle once you remove the credibility the support of the Canadian government and economy that currently gives it.  Therefore, Quebec should not secede from Canada as it would only serve to harm their economy and the livelihoods of the people they supposedly are there to protect.  [1] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [2] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [3] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .
government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada Quebec is in a unique position as the homeland for French-speaking Canadians and therefore has a very different mandate than a normal state or province. Quebec has an obligation to the rights of French Canadians as a group due to its unique position, and just because Anglo-Canadians have migrated to Quebec does not mean that the primacy of this special obligation has disappeared because the mandate’s representation within its territory has been diluted.
government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada International Law Mandates Quebec be allowed Independence  International law recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination and denying them self-determination is therefore a violation of international law.  International law recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination. The international community has decided that it is oppressive to individuals to live under a government that is systematically incapable or unwilling to protect them and their interests. [1]  The Quebecois have been systematically denied adequate representation in the federal government of Canada. Quebecois legislation protection their basic rights to retain their language and culture have been met with contempt [2] and legal action by the federal Canadian government and courts. [3] This is but one example of the very clear denial of basic representation and self-governance that afflicts the Quebecois in Canada.  Therefore, Quebec has the legal right to self-determination and independence in international law.  [1] „Reference re Secession of Quebec“, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, &lt;  &gt;  [2] “Maxime Bernier on Quebec law: ‘We don’t need Bill 101’”, The Canadian Press, 4 February 2011, &lt;  &gt;  [3] Hudon, R., „Bill 101“, The Canadian Encyclopedia, &lt;  &gt;
government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada Many countries in the world have bad economies; this is not a reason to not be an independent country. Economic circumstances can change and be improved through different economic initiatives; this simply isn’t a good enough reason to not secede from Canada. Furthermore, there is significant economic evidence that suggests that smaller states, such as that of Quebec, have a higher chance of thriving economically than larger states such as Canada. [1] Therefore, this argument not only does not justify the opposition case, but also is entirely speculative and likely incorrect. Quebec’s economy could very well benefit significantly from detaching its economy from Canada.  [1] Price, Adam, „Small Is Cute, Sexy, and Successful: Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense“, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011, &lt;  &gt;
government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada The right to self-determination does not necessitate independence, but rather determination of their own governance. This principle is widely seen as not being about sovereignty, but rather the right to control local governance for their peoples, a right already extended to the Quebecois. The International Court of Justice, the most important court of international law, has recognized the right of self-determination as being adequately fulfilled by devolved governance. [1]  Moreover, as explained in counterargument one, there is no basis for the Quebecois to claim that they are systematically denied adequate representation, making the international legal precedent on self-determination irrelevant.  [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., „Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International law“, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, &lt;  &gt;, p.11
europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland An attempt at a plebiscite in 1921/22 under the specter of a war of independence and civil war would have been fraught with danger and even more open to intimidation than the House of Commons.  It would be undemocratic to relinquish Northern Ireland today, because recent polls have shown that the majority of people want to remain within the UK. *  *Moriarty, 2011,
global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgia's government is democratic and modern in its institutions. It is fully capable and intent on governing S. Ossetia democratically and honestly. Moreover, if the aim of the S. Osseitans' is to join with Russia, upon seceding from Georgia (as seems likely), then the many arguments it is putting forward in support of its national identity and right to self-determination do not apply in the same way, as they would be simply exchanging minority status in one state for minority status in another, and not truly seeking their own homeland where Ossets would be a majority, as they claim. This means that arguments about Ossetian being its own language and the Ossets having a long history of self-rule are not in fact arguments for secession, as secession would simply result in a transfer to Russia and not a truly Ossetian state. Therefore, the real question is: does Georgia or Russia have a greater claim to S. Ossetia as part of its territory? The historical arguments made by proposition clearly should Georgia to have a greater claim here.
global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination (for example, viability as an independent state and an authentic internal drive for independence), and S. Ossetia arguably does not meet many of these criteria. Therefore S. Ossetia possesses no absolute right to self-determination, and its calls for independence must be evaluated in the context of what the consequences of independence would be. Furthermore, no countries recognized South Ossetia's 2006 referendum and vote for independence at the time it was carried out, and few do now. Without such approval, the referendum should be considered illegitimate. The European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, denounced the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [1]  [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.
global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the 2006 referendum as a “free expression of the will of South Ossetia’s people through democratic procedures. Many countries in Europe and America could only envy the level of organization and democratic transparency [in South Ossetia].” [1] (10)Similarly, Luis Tascón, a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela, stated during visit to S. Ossetia that “Those people who wish to be free will be free. And the free peoples will help South Ossetia with it.” [2] (13) Denying the legitimacy of this democratic referendum (whose flaws have not been proved to have been so severe as to discredit it entirely) is to deny the South Ossetian people the right to self-determination.  [1] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.   [2] Enotes. “South Ossetian independence referendum, 2006”. Enotes.
international law philosophy political philosophy politics government house believes What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.  Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1.  1 Macko, Kalyna: "The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation", Salve Regina University, July 2011.
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty  Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1.  1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government.  One should not assume that the lack of democracy is wholly negative; do the majority of people know what is best for the country? Or do industry experts? Could the public reach a consensus on important governing decisions? Government can see the bigger picture and balance the needs of different interest groups to produce the best outcome for all: ‘true’ democracy is simply unworkable and can too easily lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as described by Fareed Zakaria. [1] Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is to look at the two champions of democracy: France and America. France overturned its monarchy and government in the name of liberty, yet quickly descended into mob-rule and violence; ‘democracy’ had a bloody birth. [2] Similarly one only has to look at the appalling levels of inequality within the United States of America to question the nature and worth of ‘democracy’. [3] So if the nature of government is not simply to fulfil notions of ‘democracy’ but to ensure good governance then the House of Lords is still an important institution.  [1] Zakaria, Fareed, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad (New York, 2003)  [2] Doyle, William, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001)  [3] American Political Science Association Task Force, ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2004)
international law philosophy political philosophy politics government house believes In many cass, it is not self-determination that causes tensions, but the lack of opportunity for minorities to choose their own future. Conflicts and civil wars generally take place not because people want self-determination but because they are not allowed it. In the Yugoslav example, if the Milosevic government had recognised the right of the country's component ethnic groups to self-determination, rather than seeking forcibly to suppress it, then there would have been no armed conflict. In contrast, by the time Montenegro sought to secede from Serbia, the now-democratic Serb government accepted their right to do so, and the split was carried out without bloodshed1.  1 "Montenegro declares independence", BBC News, 4 June 2006.
europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland The majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland do not support unification  The Good Friday agreement affirmed “That if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments [UK and Ireland] to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.* However as yet the Northern Irish do not wish to exercise this right. In a recent survey conducted by The Northern Ireland Life and Times it transpired that, “Overall, 73 per cent believe the long-term policy for the North should be maintaining the union, with 58 per cent supporting devolution and 15 per cent in favour of direct rule. Just 16 per cent want a united Ireland, with 3 per favoring an independent Northern Ireland.” This is not just amongst the Protestant population. The survey also showed that, “just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favoring a return to direct rule from Westminster.”**  *NIO, 1998,   **Moriarty, 2011,
business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces Smokers have a right to enjoy themselves.  Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"1. So, smokers have the same rights as non-smokers and should not be targeted because of how they choose to live their lives. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" 1.If some people get their rest and leisure by smoking with friends in a pub, it seems that governments should make it possible, by at least having smoking areas in pubs, restaurants, etc. A ban on smoking in all public places would mean smokers could never enjoy themselves like they want to, at least not legally. There are many groups which feel that the rights of the smoker are being ignored, e.g. "Forest".  1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations,
addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public Nip the problem in the bud  Smoking rates in Africa are relatively low; a range of 8%-27% with an average of only 18% of the population smoking 1 (or, the tobacco epidemic is at an early stage 2 ). That’s good, but the challenge is to keep it that way and reduce it.  A ban on smoking in public places at this stage would stop tobacco gaining the widespread social acceptability that caused it to thrice in the 20th century in the Global North. The solution is to get the solutions in now, not later.  1 Kaloko, Mustapha, 'The Impact of Tobacco Use on Health and Socio-Economic Development in Africa', African Union Commission, 2013,  , p.4  2 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “What we do: Tobacco control strategy overview”, Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, no date,
business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.  1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc.
global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.  Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved.  Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough.  [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23.
economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible
economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The market should determine the price of products and services  A free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a "dynamic capitalist system" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).  1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011  2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.
economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive "makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part1/2. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others3. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared.  1 Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011  2 Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011  3 Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11, S(No. 1), 5-23. D. Reidel and Felix Meiner. Retrieved June 9, 2011