mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.  1 Adorno, T., &amp; Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.
economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The capitalist society enhances personal freedom  The Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional "fortunate circumstance" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.  1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011
economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should The government has a right to make decisions in the best interest of the people  Man is a social being. Therefore people live in communities where decisions that affect the many, are taken by representatives of the many. Thus, a social contract exists between the people and their government. [1] In exchange for part of their autonomy and freedom, the government ensures that policies are made in the best interest of people, even if this might come at the expense of short-term interests for some individuals. This is a typical example of this kind of case. The trend is emptying the countryside, stopping the production of agricultural goods and hollowing the amenities provided by the cities. Even if each individual has a personal incentive to move to the cities, the harm to the cities is greater than their accumulated individual gains. It is in these cases that the state must act to protect its people and ensure long term benefits.  [1] D'Agostino, Fred, Gaus, Gerald and Thrasher, John, "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
economic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.  It is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.
business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government.  If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions.  According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom ﬂourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom ﬂourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of conﬁdence in the justice of government” [1] .  [1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546
arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art  Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual.  An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily.  For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.
primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.  95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism. [1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years. [2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process. [3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith [4] . Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science.  [1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.  [3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1).  [4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2  1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.
arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Intellectual property is a legal fiction created for convenience in some instances, but copyright should cease to be protected under this doctrine  An individual’s idea only truly belongs solely to them so long as it rests in their mind alone. When they disseminate their ideas to the world they put them in the public domain, and should become the purview of everyone to use. Artists and creators more generally, should not expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea they happen to have, since no such ownership right exists in reality. [1] No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share the same order of protection even now because they exist in a different order to physical reality. However, some intellectual property is useful in encouraging investment and invention, allowing people to engage their profit motives to the betterment of society as a whole. To an extent one can also sympathize with the notion that creators deserve to accrue some additional profit for the labour of the creative process, but this can be catered for through Creative Commons non-commercial licenses which reserve commercial rights. [2] These protections should not extend to non-commercial use of the various forms of arts. This is because art is a social good of a unique order, with its purpose not purely functional, but creative. It only has value in being experienced, and thus releasing these works through creative commons licenses allows the process of artistic experience and sharing proceeds unhindered by outmoded notions of copyright. The right to reap some financial gain still remains for the artists, as their rights still hold over all commercial use of their work. This seems like a fair compromise of the artist’s right to profit from their work and society right to experience and grow from those works.  [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2004.  [2] Walsh, K., “Commercial Rights Reserved proposal outcome: no change”, Creative Commons, 14 February 2013,
business economy general house would build hyperloop It is very unlikely that the Hyperloop would quickly reach its capacity. Currently the number of people travelling from Los Angeles to San Francisco by plane only number 2.8million so there would clearly be plenty of room for expansion. [1]  [1] Amin, Saurabh, ‘Ride the Hyperloop before decade’s end?’, CNN, 13 August 2013,
business economy general house would build hyperloop Fastest possible transportation over a short distance  Public transportation has not been getting much faster over the last few decades. The fastest method of transport, supersonic jets in the form of Concorde ceased operation in October 2003. [1] Even if at some point a new generation of supersonic planes are built these will not be ideal for travelling between cities that are comparatively close together. The time spent getting the plane up and down from cruising altitude means they would take longer over these short distances than a slower option at ground level. The Hyperloop at more than 700mph will be twice as fast as high speed rail. To take the different options on the San Francisco-Los Angeles route cars take 5hours 30minutes, the proposed high speed train would take 2hours 38minutes, by plane takes 1hour 15minutes whereas the Hyperloop would only take 35minutes. [2]  [1] ‘End of an era for Concorde’, BBC News, 24 October 2003,   [2] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.8, 56
business economy general house would build hyperloop The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user  The Hyperloop would be the cheapest mode of intercity transport possible. “Transporting 7.4million people each way and amortizing the cost of $6 billion over 20 years gives a ticket price of $20 for a one-way trip for the passenger version of Hyperloop.” [1] There are very few additional costs. Usually the main cost for transportation beyond the infrastructure is the energy but the Hyperloop produces more energy than it uses so would make a profit here. There would be additional maintenance costs and some minor staff costs but this is unlikely to add too much to the ticket price. The Hyperloop would therefore be very price competitive compared to the $100 and up for flights.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.56
economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would It is not as simple as considering that Heathrow is at capacity so everything will go to competitor airports. So far it is simple alarmism to warn of traffic going to European competitors, John Stewart (chairman of HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) points out that the airport already has more departure flights each week to key global business centres than its two closest rivals in Paris and Frankfurt combined. [1] Heathrow being at capacity may encourage other forms of transport, for example encouraging passengers to take the train rather than the plane to Edinburgh, Paris, or Brussels. Secondly it is not always simple just to change hub. As a transfer point if moving airport it would be necessary to change dozens of flights to enable the same transfers not just one or two. And finally of course Heathrow’s expansion is not the only way to deal with excess demand at Heathrow, numerous other options have been proposed from the ‘Boris island’ airport, to linking Heathrow and Gatwick by high speed train. [2]  [1] Topham, Gwyn, ‘Airline chiefs slam government for blocking Heathrow expansion’, The Guardian, 25 June 2012,   [2] BBC News, ‘Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link’, 8 October 2011,
business economy general house would build hyperloop Less than $6billion seems to be suspiciously low. Some land would undoubtedly need to be purchased if only to allow for less tight corners. Added to this there would still be delays due to the need for permits for noise, light and vibration which will mean rising costs. [1] A study of 250 major transport infrastructure projects has found that 90% of come in over budget and this escalation is 45% on rail projects. [2] And it should be remembered that this is dealing with systems were we know the costs not something that is completely new. Additionally there would be costs associated with the closures of the main road routes between Los Angeles and San Francisco – though these might be moved to the people of California the cost would still be there.  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,   [2] Flyvbjerg, Bent et al., ‘How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?’, Transport Reviews, vol.23, no.1, 2003, pp.71-88,  , p.85
economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would Location is a relatively unimportant issue when talking about ‘hubs’. In hub airports an important proportion of passengers and cargo is only passing through; it arrives to the airport by plane only to leave it again by plane without even reaching the city. As a result for these passengers the links to the city do not matter. Even for those going into London the location of the airport itself is not an issue per se, rather the length of time to get into the center of the city is. In which case wherever becomes the new hub should have new transport links built or it should be built at a location that has, or will have, good transport connections such as to the North West of London where the High Speed 2 railway will run. [1]  [1] Leftly, Mark, and Chorley, Matt, “IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow”, The Independent, 2 September 2012,
business economy general house would build hyperloop The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap  The Hyperloop would be cheap to build. The pods themselves would only cost $1.35million each, the pressurised tube just $650million (or double if wanting vehicles), with only two stations their cost would only be $250million. The biggest cost would be the construction of the pylons carrying the tube which is estimated at $2.55 or $3.15billion. There is an estimated total cost of $4.06billion for the passenger only version or $5.31billion for the vehicle version. [1] This should be compared to the current cost for California’s high speed rail project which is estimated to be $68billion while covering much the same ground. [2]  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  pp.23, 27, 32, 28, 32  [2] Slosson, Mary, ‘California moves forward on $68 billion high-speed rail project’, Reuters, 18 July 2012,
economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would Heathrow is full; it must expand  Put simply Heathrow is at the limits of its capacity so there needs to be expansion. Heathrow is already at 99% capacity and running so close to maximum capacity means that any minor problem can result in large delays for passengers. London’s major rivals have four-runway hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, even Madrid [1] this means these cities have much greater capacity as they can take up to 700,000 flights a year compared to Heathrow’s 480,000. [2] Britain does not want to be left behind, crumbling in the dust. These airports therefore clearly have the capacity to take flights that would otherwise be going to Heathrow. Heathrow needs to expand to maintain its competitiveness so that the airport retains its position the most popular place to stop-over in before catching a connecting flight. Colin Matthews, the chief executive of Heathrow (formerly BAA) has argued that Heathrow’s lack of hub capacity currently costs the UK £14billion. [3] Heathrow is in danger of falling behind continental rivals in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.  [1] Leunig, T., ‘A third runway? Yes, and a fourth too, please’ The Times, 2012,   [2] Lundgren, Kari, “Heathrow Limit Costs U.K. 14 Billion Pounds, Airport Says”, Bloomberg, 15 November 2012,   [3] Topham, Gwyn., ‘Heathrow must be expanded or replaced, airport chief announces’ The Guardian, 15 November 2012,
business economy general house would build hyperloop People are not always interested in the fastest possible option; they often want comfort as well. Trains allow riders to work or relax as well as travel the Hyperloop has little space for passengers to move around in. This means that passengers may actually be more productive on a train on which they can move around and work as they travel than they would be in a confined space on the Hyperloop.
business economy general house would build hyperloop That there have been similar suggestions before does not mean they are not commercialisable today. The very high speed trains are an inspiration for the Hyperloop but have serious disadvantages by comparison. Because of their vacuum tube the system would be stopped at the slightest leak. [1] They are also astonishingly expensive with the cost associated with construction estimated at as high as $1trillion, the hyperloop is much more economic and therefore practical.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.3